Wednesday, 30 January 2008
David Miliband is pushing through the transfer of Sovereignty ON LOAN to him and all MPs by the British Electorate. He has no right to hand over something loaned to him. Even when he does, the rightful owners are legally entitled to take back what is theirs.
Stand this man next to a traitor, and you could not fit a cigarette paper between them.
I blurt out the following:
In the far east, good doctors with a vocation to the art have thriving private practices charging top whack and then they do additional out of hours "freebie" or near as damn it low cost work for those who cannot afford it.
The giver decides who gets their charity. The asker decides if they are able to pay the going rate or should they, must they, go to the other sessions. The wealthy pay and have the dignity not to sponge. The poor have dignity too, knowing that even the charity sessions are already quite expensive for them and feel glad and respect the doctors who take time to help them - the act of charity is a way of doctors giving respect to the poor, valuing their health and welfare. Doctors are held in high esteem by ALL sections - rich or poor. They both know the doctor is a valued resource and they are fortunate to get a chance to visit them.
It is all about connecting the giver to the receiver. Of course, Socialists cannot stand the idea that someone gives charity when they choose (how DARE they!) or that people ask for it when truly in need (how "demeaning"!) - they prefer the middle classes to be forced like indentured servants to toil away paying for it all while the poor are dependent and "grateful"*. Socialism hates connecting giver and receiver, as it wants to be the one handing over the cash, the benefits, the keys, the treatment, the charity. IT wants to put itself between every person, every soul, teacher and pupil, doctor and patient and now we see even between parent and child.
God I hate Socialism - it is so inhuman.
* fat chance - something given for free by right is rarely received with gratitude but is eventually snatched out of the hand with contempt. Why? The disconnection, of course.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
The appointment comes as the ISC's annual report voices concern that a focus on counter-terrorism may be hitting other security commitments.
The committee wants ministers to look at extra funding for other activities.
The ISC is made up of senior MPs and peers
gagging for a sinecure chosen by the government.
It oversees the work of the intelligence agencies - MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the Defence Intelligence Staff - and reports directly to the
Town Clerk of Britain prime minister rather than to Parliament.
Mrs Beckett left the cabinet after Mr Brown became prime minister last summer
because she was an incompetent harridan.
The ISC's annual report says 200 extremist networks are currently under investigation.
In evidence, the Security Service told the committee it had "not had any choice but to
take Beckett who will meddle in prioritise" this area of its work.
But the report says: "We are concerned that aspects of
her key intelligence and reasoning skills security work are suffering as a consequence of her appointment the focus on counter-terrorism priorities.
"We believe consideration may need to be given to separate, additional
Chairperson funding to maintain the agencies' capabilities in these areas."
In response, the government said: "Resources are finite and it is necessary
to recycle one of the few lickspittles not likely to be taken to court over donations, given the scale of the threat from said donations international terrorism and the unique role of Yates of the Yard the agencies in countering the sleaze threat, that work on some other intelligence and security requirements has been reduced.
Apologies to the BBC.
Merk: Hold hym, Sarko, unt I vill ponch his slack jaw aront his hed!
Sarko: Listen, we yav ad enough of you, imbecile! You screwed up once too often.
Broon: Me? Screw up? Nah mate, wern t'me, t'was Badger, see. I wuz off the manna wen it appen'd! Straight up!
Monday, 28 January 2008
There is a word for this indirect form of compulsion which escapes me...and I do not mean "a lie" or "COWARDICE", although those terms would still fit.
"I will not make any deals with you...I will not be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or NUMBERED. My life is my own." - The Prisoner.We are...in the village. By hook or by crook they will try to get our information. Information. INFORMATION.
0.74s later, a Traffic unit appears parallel to my Erforschungträger, continues to brake heavily and swoops down the slip road cutting off the moron.
Speed cameras keeping everyone below 50 on a stretch that could easily be 70 just in case? who needs it, but Traffic Police nailing the true dangers on the road as they happen, yes.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
Our present government is taxing, borrowing** and spending. We should have been butchering our National Debt during this last decade of "sustained growth" and "fiscal prudence" but instead it has grown and continues to grow - fiscal prune juice might be a better description considering the incontinence we have seen.
All this relies on increased consumer spending and this is fuelled in no small part by consumer debt.
If Rule of Law is maintained and the Government is not the arbiter on so much expenditure and regulation - which favours the large and/or incumbent - then the "rich and powerful" have less traction and must continue to operate in such a way as to meet the needs of their customers in the open market.
The best way to reduce what the State does is to reduce the funds with which it operates. The only sure fire way to stop the Government spending is to reduce its income. Lower taxes mean smaller budgets. Smaller budgets means lower spending, i.e. politicians and departments with less to spend. Politicians with less to spend means less money to be "lobbied" from them, to put it politely. Less money "lobbied" means less opportunity for corruption. Less corruption increases the chances of wise spending decisions, or at least only daft decisions, not corrupt decisions.
Big business unable to get special concessions or deals from the State have to appeal to private companies and individuals. New entrants have more of a chance. Arrogant incumbents will be always under threat from disruptive technologies that typically arrive via new players. It keeps things healthier. It keeps the monopoly and cartel at bay.
The very reasons, motivations and talents that make a company successful will, if unchecked by market forces, draw that company towards a position of dominance, cartel or monopoly. The State, by definition, creates a monopoly of provision in the areas it operates. This is either an explicit monopoly via legislation or a de facto monopoly by tax compulsion-provision or tax subsidy, preventing competition from being viable in all but tiny niches. The State and private enterprise are a dangerous mix and should be kept apart as much as possible - private companies too closely linked to the State will connive with it to create State commissioned tax subsidised or legislated monopolies run by the private organisations. Anyone say PFI at the back?
The State is a lousy buyer. It buys in a way that risks seriously rolling the taxpayer. It is in its DNA. It has to do as little as possible.
Lower taxes, eliminate income tax, shrink the State, pull out of direct commissioning and provision of health and education. Reduce bureaucracy and needless regulation whilst enforcing Rule of Law consistently.
Britain can be a home of plutocrats, but as long as they are kept on their toes by the markets and the customers within making free, independent decisions based upon their own personal and unique circumstances in an environment where Rule of Law is upheld, it will afford few opportunities for plutocrats to misbehave. I still think they will have a great time making lots of money and their customers also getting access to innovative, ever cheaper, more reliable and better made products.
Regulate heavily or being a form of merchantilism and you will strangle new entrants and lose the openness, transparency, innovation and vibrancy that they bring.
* I suspect many in the middle classes feel that way, frankly, because of the disgraceful way they are treated by the government.
** and not forgetting the pan-generational mortgaging of the future called PFI.
Friday, 25 January 2008
Jac, appearing as she does with frightening consistency like some mediocre HR Manager from a cardboard box factory, came out with this gem over the 42 day detention rule:
"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now onJacqui Smith has known non-working braincells, has unknown non-working braincells, but clearly no known working braincells!
the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the
future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future;
we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If,
unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future
it is in place."
Thursday, 24 January 2008
The chaps over at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia have been combining within the battery casing the components of an accumulator - i.e. battery - and a capacitor. Batteries can store large amounts of charge and retain it for a long time, but are not very good at absorbing and releasing it quickly - doing so tends to create heat and damage their chemistry. Capacitors, on the other hand, can be charged and discharged very rapidly many thousands of times, but they have limited bulk storage and tend to let charge leak away fairly rapidly. Combining the two has been done many times before, but within the same carcass is innovative.
Capacitors are key as they enable regenerative braking to be adopted. It makes electric and hybrid cars extend their range significantly, for, once this is in place, the energy put into acceleration and hill climbing are recouped*. Cars like the Toyota Prius do not have regenerative braking as their battery systems are incapable of absorbing the significant amounts of electrical energy produced. Even if they did have a capacitor, the Toyota's motor, which would work as the regenerative brake, is just too feeble to perform the task. As I blogged earlier, a Mini with near total conversion drive and braking needs 640bhp - 160bhp at each wheel to perform braking. It makes for a quick little car, though, and the full regenerative braking means the range is significantly extended.
Cars like the parallel hybrid Prius are clumsy, over complex and not really efficient at all - a decent French diesel could do better and be more fun to drive**. It is a shame they went down that path for a series hybrid - no mechanical connection between engine and wheels - has been out for over 100 years!
One day. One day. And today, that day gets closer.
*except for wind, rolling and conversion losses.
** unless you count being an ignorant no-nothing smug twat fun.
Free people will be offered cash incentives to lose liberties and limit their freedom as part of a new Government strategy to tackle the democratic epidemic, which could ultimately cost the EU £50bn a year to suppress.
Should free people be paid to lose freedom?
Employers will be encouraged to set up competitions with cash, vouchers and other rewards for people taking up a more oppressed lifestyle.
Similar schemes have worked in the USSR and PRK, while government departments and QANGOs in Britain are already offering jobs and pensions to people who regularly curtail their hard-won rights.
Should the free be paid to abdicate their responsibilities? Should employers monitor their employees' rights and freedoms?
What is the best way to encourage people to lead an oppressed lifestyle?
Sorry, DT, could not resist it.
I am biased. I declare an interest in wanting a new airport in the Thames Estuary, as I live in West London. I don't want to have a plane land in my garden and crumple my Apple tree and rose bushes*. The shed needs replacing, but that is not an excuse. An airport in the Thames would cut the impact of noise pollution upon people immensely. Yes, for Nature as a whole it just moves it a tad, but then most of the noise will be over water. Importantly the approaches would be too. Over water, not over row upon row of Victorian, Edwardian and inter-war terraces and semis**. Pollution would be dispersed over the Channel, not over London. London gets a vast new area well connected by transport links to build new housing - the old Heathrow site.
Back to the article, it basically talks of the lost golden age not just because of Flight038, but also due to restrictions on the horizon caused by carbon hysteria and synthetic costs created by the EU and other agents of World Government. Two comments leapt out at me. Polar opposites, if you pardon the expression.
The first, by a self-loathing, likey pinch-faced killjoy who needs to do us all a favour and log on to Bebo and get chatting...
Each Western baby selfishly conceived will have a "carbon footprint" over its lifetime equal to several thousand transatlantic flights.So, Purches, be faithful to your belief and go stick your head in the oven, ok? Do us all a favour. Oh, and before you do that, cut off your sultana sized nads, roast and eat them so you need not worry about your DNA being used to produce selfish vile western carbon producing babies in future. Today would be nice.
Posted by Michael Purches, Abingdon, Oxon. on January 24, 2008 8:33 AM
The second is a cracker and I reproduce it here and give kudos to the writer, Ian May.
There is a golden age coming to an end: the golden age of global warming. The rise in surface temperatures over the past thirty years or so are as much apparent as real, these records being contaminated by the climatology community's refusal to take proper account of the urban development effect. The least bad measure currently of global temperature is the satellite reading of the lower troposhere. The recent downtrend in the chart on this referenced web page speaks for itself:Spot on. I wonder if Ian is a Libertarian?
Incidentally, this decline in global temperature probably explains the shift of emphasis within Greenspeak from "global warming" to "climate destabilisation", or "climate impact". This is quite a smart move on the part of the socialists in the Green Trojan Horse as thanks to New Labour's ongoing assault on the educational tradition, not many people will notice the corollary. That is, anything we do beyond growing potatoes and hand basket-weaving, whether it results in temperature increases or not, shoves Mother Nature off her perch. This is axiomatically "bad", and activities thereof must be banned, or preferably regulated and taxed. (Regulated and taxed more, I should have said.)
Posted by Ian May on January 24, 2008 8:04 AM
Let us not allow the AGW creeps off the hook. Climate Change has occurred for 4billion years. Don't you miserable worms try and kid us that was what you were really on about you wretched Authoritarian scumbags!
* Noise is less of an issue, before you yell NIMBY. It is annoying, but not enough for me to demand the airport move, as I gain from being a 25mins drive or tube away. And before you say why drive if you have the tube, I do so because the intellectual pygmies who constructed the tube placed the stations as far as possible away from any of the terminals and put innumerable passages, stairs, lifts, gates and gratients between it and them.
**I know some greenies almost get a semi over the prospect of shutting down Heathrow, but not for the basic reasons such as safety, but for synthetic and soon-to-be-discredited reasons put out by a lying religion.
Well, here is a clip: It is magnificent, hilarious, beautifully constructed and tells a truth.
All Miliband can do is laugh, but the joke is, actually on US. Hague should keep this up over and over again banging on about how our Sovereignty is being taken away. Ridicule those Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking, ok, Socialist parasites.
DING! Repetition, I said "Socialist", which basically is an Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking parasite.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Total fluff and wibble on health.
He also says that all three parties have come to a consensus on budget spending and it is all about
On Europe he wibbled and wormed even more. Slippery and disingenuous. He tries some re-writing of history and tries to project his reality-distortion, entrenched in his head out to the surroundings. He failed.
A Lib Dem leader, he is.
EDIT: Shame there is no transcript, as a good fisking would be in order.
I tend to text people if I know I might interrupt them, or they may be busy, like at work. It allows the receiver to prioritise without shame or affront. It is considerate.
In Finland, I hear, this is a common dimension to mobile phone etiquette. I hope it spreads to the UK.
A couple of points pop out.
The Government has said it plans to make ID cards compulsory, but only after a "voluntary" period during which anyone who renews a passport or driving licence will be automatically issued with a card.So this is not voluntary you scumbags! Since when is a passport or driving license - renewal compulsory if moving home - "voluntary"? Disingenuous scumbags! David Davis needs to be tearing the government a new one each and every time they try and use the term "voluntary".
Pressed repeatedly whether he stands by plans to make ID cards compulsory for all UK nationals, the Prime Minister said only: "It is the Government's policy to move ahead with this but subject to a vote of Parliament, depending on how the voluntary scheme works."DAVID?!!! New arsehole. Gordon Brown. NOW!
James Crosby, the head of the HBOS bank, completed a review of the potential private sector uses for ID cards last year. But the Treasury has now confirmed there is no date set for its publication.I wonder why...*
An ID card could be made a requirement for holding a job in a "position of trust" such as teaching or social care from 2009.An MP is a position of trust, as is a Local Councillor, Magistrate, Judge, Barrister, Lawyer, Lord Chancellor, Policeman. Lets see them all get chipped like dogs and see how they like it. Lead by example, Mister Brown. So, by 2009, then, eh? Lets see it for MPs before the end of this year. I suspect that driving license still has the Manse on it, no? Renew it for your change of address, Gordon. Lets see how long it will be before your biometrics are found in a laptop on a roundabout outside Corby**.
More delays = more cost. The very nature of the rollout is an insult to the nation and people. "voluntary" my painted arse!
* I have long thought that institutions like Banks could provide us with a pluralistic, free market alternative to an insidious, mission-creeping State-run ID card system.
** No offence to Corby, btw, the roundabout had to be somewhere.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
The floor of the chamber is full. At the Despatch Box Miliband, flanked by Brown, Harman, a pinched-faced Blears and the rest of the Front Bench. The Opposition is in full attendance. Tim C, Libertarian, is on the back benches.
Goddamn Timmy, this is some serious gourmet Referendum Amendment. Me an' Gordon would have been satisfied with rubber stampin’ The old Treaty. You spring this gourmet f***in' Referendum Amendment on us. What dogma is this?
Knock it off, David.
I don't need you to tell me how good my Amendment is, ok? I'm the one who proposed it, I know how f**kin' good it is. When Gordon goes negotiating, he signs shit. I propose the gourmet intelligent stuff 'cause when I draft it, I wanna vote it. But what's on my mind at this moment ain't the Amendment in this Bill, it's the dead Sovereignty in this Parliament.
Oh, Timmy --
-- N N No. I don't want to debate about anything. Now let me ask you a question, Miliband. When you drove in here, did you notice a sign out front that said, "Dead Sovereignty Storage?"
MILIBAND tries to “Timmy” him
-- answer the question. Did you see a sign out in front of this house that said, "Dead Sovereignty Storage?"
Naw man, I didn't.
You know why you didn't see that sign?
'Cause it ain' there cos storin' dead Sovereignty ain't our f**kin' business that’s why!
MILIBAND asks if TC would give way.
-- N N N N no! Don't you f**ckin' realise, man, that if the Electorate wakes up and finds a dead Legislature in this House, we’re gonna get lynched. No by-election, no vote of confidence – we're gonna get f**kin' lynched. And I don't wanna get f**kin' lynched. The last time me an' the Electorate talked about this shit was gonna be the last time me an' the Electorate talked about this shit. Now I wanna help ya out Miliband, I really do*. But I ain't gonna lose my life doin' it, alright?
-- don't f**kin' “Timmy” me, David, don't f**kin "Timmy" me, I can't be Timmy’d. There's nothin' you can say that's gonna make me forget I love my Country. IS THERE? Now, they’ll be looking at the News in less than an hour and a half. You need make your sound bites, talk to your whips?, well then do it, then get the f**k into the Division Lobby before the Ten O'clock News!
Apologies to Quentin Tarantino.
* Yeh, right
Monday, 21 January 2008
This is a nice augmentation to the ongoing exposure of the 'tyranny of the banal', the very lawsuit mentioned, which is going on in Canada. The Trench picks out an excellent soundbite, which pretty much nails it "I don't answer to the State".
Spot on. The above vid reminds me of Pulp Fiction when Tarantino was "discussing" with Jules and Vincent about coffee, storage, brains and getting f***ing divorced*.
We shall not grant them the moral authority, for they neither deserve it, nor are able to exercise it. These Fifth Columnists, these self-loathers need a mirror held up to their miserable faces for a reality check.
* no counselling, no trial separation...
Not a good few days for Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary.
We had her prattling on about internet censorship of "terrorists", which I suspect is going to be a scandalous, rent-seeking, opportunistic and disingenuous gold-plating exercise of the EU plan.
She blurted out that she would not feel safe walking alone at night in London. She does not have to, as she has now escaped into that protective bubble of cabinet office for which all her hypocritical colleagues clamour for. Whatever Jacqui says, crime against the person is up and, just as importantly, the police and the State in the form of the courts and CPS, are seen as at best ambivalent and increasingly hostile to the law abiding population. The resolution of all these ills lies at her door, for this is the source.
I have always felt Jacqui Smith would at a stretch be a mediocre HR Manager at a cardboard box factory in Northampton. A comment by muggeridge in the comments to an article over at the Telegraph says it very nicely:
The new Home Secretary rates as very minor amateur politician. She reflects very middle class values about this generation of i-pod lovers. The Peter principle with everyone rising to their own level of incompetence seems about right. British ministers seem to be a bunch of yes men/women like Des Browne or Tessa Jowell or Hazel Blears. Foreign Secretary Milliband should be working at the main reception at the Dorchester hotel checking out the guests*. Figures like Sir Geoffrey Howe or Sir Michael Heseltine are in short supply. PM Brown requires a non-descript team of blank faces. Apparently good life in the suburbs has made our Home Secretary as informed as a avon lady.....maybe they do live on another planet as JANET says!Worst of all, though, is a pitiful attempt to "do something" which only highlights her amateurish, ignorant and unthinking methods - branding terror activity "un-Islamic". An example:
Posted by muggeridge on January 21, 2008 9:11 AM
At one point Mrs Smith said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.
"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."
Has Jacqui Smith ever bothered to read the life of Mohammed? Clearly not.
I guess am un-Islamic** and I suspect most Muslims in the UK would be considered so too by the Islamists. Regardless, it is not for Jacqui Smith to decide who is or is not "Islamic". The fact that she is attacking un-Islamic behaviour is so utterly stupid, because it would need her and her cronies to decide who is or is not exempt from "un-Islamic behaviour" or what sort of un-Islamic behaviour needs action to be taken. It is totally unworkable. It does not need such a label - if people of whatever religion or political creed kill random citizens then that is a crime. Period.
I do think Useful Idiot Jacqui has listened too much to organisations like the MCB. For them they must be licking their lips, for if you start using this frame of reference, they will need to be called in to 'decide' what is and what is not. Access to classified on going investigations perhaps? Who knows. I do not think this is by accident. Jacqui Smith has used the term and I really do suspect that very soon the MCB will worm itself into the loop.
The best weapon against home grown jihadis, IMHO, is ridicule. If the MCB gets splattered by a heavy dose, then that is their lookout.
*Yes, Miliband checking out guests. You would certainly not want to have him checking them IN for fear of losing business.
** for I am a Libertarian beer-drinking bacon sarni eater who believes in Rule of Law.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
Over at Iain Dale, a very good comment popped up around this post of his.
I reproduce it here in full. It is a corker. I concur with it. Unless something serious is done, we are going to be royally stuffed. Our hope, IMHO, is both ourselves and India.
The comment goes as follows:
m rhistovOther posters point out the truth that people in our Government and establishment are determined to deny - that China is only interested in our technology and know-how, not our products. Given their attitude to intellectual property, do not expect us to gain anything out of "technology transfer".
I believe that the liberal democracies face a real problem with China. It is a problem that the BBC are currently ignoring. Such ignorance is demonstrated by childish news reports, which say that Great Britain was a minor country in Marco Polo’s day and that China was great power then and “the wheel has come full circle”.
The problem is that modern day China represents a triumph for state communism and a defeat for liberal democracy.
In the late 1970s state communism suffered a severe crisis. The Soviet Union and China represented the two greatest communist powers. The former was running out of money and could no longer rely upon the myth that everyone was building communism and had to suffer now to make gains in the future. In addition, it had proved impossible to maintain the level of coercion that had been used to subdue its enemies. Senior party officials in the satellite communist states were openly embracing Christianity and getting away with it. China had suffered the cultural revolution. An overt attempt to subvert the Confucian tradition of seniority. The Chinese were also running out of money.
The Chinese communists decided that the way forward was to liberalise the economy. There was a strong communist tradition of trying to do this. Lenin had authorised the New Economic Policy, which was a neo-capitalist system but it had been sunk by Stalin. In addition, some of the Soviet satellites were effectively running systems which allowed minimal elements of capitalism. Notably, Zhivkov’s Bulgaria.
The liberalisation of the economy was a huge success and helped China to ‘blind’ the liberal democracies to the fact that they were still an authoritarian communist regime. They were helped by the fact that western politicians were increasingly influenced by multi-national companies, who could only see benefits from such liberalisation.
The medium term result of the liberalisation was to make the Chinese communist party enormously rich.
The Soviet Union chose the route of political liberalisation. This was a complete disaster, from a Soviet viewpoint. In a very short time: the Soviet Union lost its empire; split up into its constituent parts and lost major state assets to individuals, who were chiefly former communists with connections which allowed them to effectively rob the state.
Now the liberal democracies face a real dilemma. China is to be the future superpower. Yet there is no way that the Chinese communist party is going to emulate the Soviet example and initiate their own destruction. We will have a communist autocracy as the most powerful country in the world.
There are currently two ways that the liberal intelligentsia in this country are dealing with the problem. The first is to ignore it. This is what the establishment is also doing. The second is to produce idiotic theories that Chinese communism will collapse under its own weight. The sort of ideas retailed by Will Hutton in his latest book “The Writing on The Wall”.( remember that book that lauded the coming Blair Revolution, “The State We‘re In”. Well, we are definitely in a state now, Will).
Rich institutions do not collapse under their own weight. They buy up poor institutions, just as the Chinese communist party is buying up large parts of Africa. They are also investing in western countries.
By the end of this century we will know if increasingly impoverished liberal democracy can triumph against a seriously well funded communist state, which owns large parts of the world, including many of our own major companies. I wouldn’t hold your breath, if I were you.
I haven’t even mentioned what will happen when ordinary Americans realise that they are no longer “top dogs” (a position that they seem to believe is theirs by divine right) and the ‘commies’ have come back. We can expect fireworks.
If the world still exists in 110 years time then you can expect British schoolchildren to be reading hagiographies to communist heroes, such as Castro. There will have been a ceremonial reburial of Karl Marx in Beijing. Mao will be the great helmsman and Simon Heffer, Iain Dale and, indeed, myself will have been erased from the pages of history. Capital punishment will be back and career politicians will be having a “field day”, in our own communist party.
I hope this doesn’t happen but someone had better realise that we are “sleepwalking” into Chinese world domination and the corollary of that is communist political domination . If this happens then Lenin‘s world revolution will have succeeded.
Nightie night, children...
Friday, 18 January 2008
I am absolutely flabbergasted.
Off course, if you are a member of the
It, however, most certianly applies to US! Question: When I am taken away, will my wife get a receipt for her husband?
Thousands of years ago, 300 Spartans stood and defended what was then the beacon of Liberty - not idealised democracy, but the rights of people to vote and overturn their leaders by due process . ~They stood, fought and refused to yield against monarchy, tyranny and absolutism born from the delusion and pretence of divine power.
EU "Law" is not my Law. It is alien. It is what the British fought against. It is what we rejected and have been rejecting until the Fifth Columnists gained power. The English Common Law is my Law. I was born into it and I wish everyone could be born to it and remain should they so choose.
Go, stranger passing by, and tell the Spartans that we lie here dead, obedient to our Law.
* "It is as if the Pharaohs have returned..."
I wonder if this has anything to do with the renewed, order-of-magnitude cheaper IEC Fusion programme, that I blogged about earlier, which has already achieved first plasma after the project re-started a few months ago. ITER will not get there for 10 years, take 10 years to prove it is actually doing what they think it is doing, 10 years to refine, 10 years to get a prototype power station complete*. So, in 2047 ITER, even by today's timescales, will only just be ready to start the process of generating commercially. 40+ years, yet IEC has plasma in months. ITER appears to resemble a project to create a steam-powered aeroplane**.
ITER is a cathedral-sized, neutron-spewing leviathan, a piece of hell that needs to be constantly contained and restrained. IEC fusion is mews-sized and, in comparison, pretty clean and safe.
Everyone is wailling about "international commitment", i.e. ego. Science should be about following the right path or all possible paths. ITER is about ego. ITER is Fusion for small willies. The logical approach for International fusion research would be to fund IEC Fusion alongside ITER - a hedge. Does the "International Community" do that? No.
* There is a great R4 show on now about the ZETA project, which tracks the Fusion research with a UK slant. As always, UK genius stabbed in the back by the State. From thsi programe and out of the mouth of an ITER rep I get these timeframes.
** Ein Zeppelin würde vermutlich gut, ja funktionieren?
Thursday, 17 January 2008
She told a conference in London that preventing young Britons being radicalised was the Government’s priority.
A new Home Office unit has been set up specifically to counter Brussels' efforts to manipulate individuals and groups
They were prey to ''Statist Svengalis who work to seduce young people into believing that Statism is a fully feasible outlet for their teenage political ambitions’’.
Miss Smith said the Government proposes to step up its drive against websites that promote blatant Sociofascism.
She maintained that if paedophile material can be filtered off the net so could disingenuous rhetoric designed to groom vulnerable young men for Statism.
She has been talking to internet providers and IT experts about how it can be done
''It is difficult but that does not mean we should not try,’’ Miss Smith said. “Stopping people becoming or supporting Statists is the major long-term challenge we face.’’
She said the evidence of Statists using the internet to spread messages was overwhelming.
''We need to do to show that the internet isn't a no-go area as far as our tackling of Statism is concerned,” Miss Smith added.
Her speech at the International Centre for Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King’s College, London, was her first on Statism since becoming Home Secretary.
Miss Smith said the threat from Statism was real and severe but had to be ''kept in perspective.’’
Those plotting enslavement were a very small minority of people who were criminals and would be treated as such.
The Government is about to publish another counter-State Bill which will include plans to detain suspects for up to 42 hours without charge.
But Miss Smith denied this was draconian. 'To succeed against Statism and violent extremism in this country, we will depend not on force, but on force of argument,’’she said.
''Not on authoritarianism, but on the authority that comes from shared values, shared rights and shared responsibilities."
Mark Littlewood, of Progressive Vision, a think tank promoting classical liberalism, said: “The idea that Statism can be thwarted by seeking to shut down extremist websites is absurd and dangerous.
''It is easy to host such sites outside of British jurisdiction
Apologies to Philip Johnston.
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
The Air Car is an invention by a Frenchman, Mr Negre, it uses a lightweight but safe tank to store energy in the form of compressed air, produced via an electric pump. This is then released to drive a motor. As most kids educated before New Labour screwed up our schools and banished basic things like physics would know, when you compress something it heats up and when you decompress it cools down. The Negre innovation is to also have the decompressed air in the motor as the car runs absorb heat from the surroundings and so get a second bite at the cherry, i.e. it absorbs heat from the environment and then gains some additional pressure. This is used to assist in expelling subsequent decompressed air ready for the next charge.*
Tata is involved. India is a good place, I would say as it is highly likely the decompressed air would be able to absorb plenty of heat from the surroundings. Could probably provide a nice supply of air conditioning, too!
Newer models use full hybrid aspects, much as a very interesting Mini does, to provide an on-board fuel-powered compressor to extend the range even further. The article says up to 900 miles on a single gallon, but something there rings an alarm. Typo, I think - 900 miles on a single air tank + fuel tank, with 100mpg sounds more like it to me, unless the heat from the engine is to be used to assist in compression...maybe it is. Anyone?
What I like about it is, it is another step in busting the Antediluvian ambitions of the Sandalistas and Watermelon crowd who basically hate cars for being cars - the use of fossil fuels is a convenient stick, the real hatred I suspect is this personal private freedom and related aspects of individualism, "consumption" and rejection of the "egalitarian" herd/clay.
Go read the article.
* This is an example of simplicity that is obvious when explained yet is devilishly hard to realise beforehand and/or implement elegantly. I bet a number of you are saying "yeh so what, that's easy/obvious" - well, where were you, eh? Why didn't you do it? It is VERY HARD to invent/realise things like this. People who do not appreciate hard-won simplicity like this are the ignorant, unappreciative, contemptible swine.
It goes on to say:
The vicious notion is that children, whether bright or not, should be regarded as the instruments of the ends of others, instead of ends in themselves. Children do not exist to serve the purposes of the state, it is the other way round. The concern should be with what is of benefit to the individuals concerned, rather than with how they can be made to serve some ideological view of society.This ties in with the organ donor mindset, the very fact we are taxed so highly, the recycling and green tyranny*, the push for ID cards, chipping people, smoking bans...basically much of what the present EU-submissive government is doing.
Soylent Red is PEOPLE!**
* I recycle and conserve, but it should always be a matter of free will.
** For those of you who do not have the faintest idea of what I am on about, look here.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Apple has done it again with their new ultraportable, the Macbook Air. Thin does not quite describe it. Using the 1.8" HDD from the iPod means it can get thinner than a normal laptop with the old 2.5" HDDs ever could. There is a 64GB solid state drive on offer too, but for an additional £639!
Full size keyboard, 13.3" display. 3lbs. 5hours productivity time*.
Roger is still on the old G4 Powerbook. Before today, this beastie was a classical beauty. Slim, elegant and retaining many of the styling cues from the original TiBook. It cut a dash wherever it went, even though it is now almost 3 years old.
After seeing the Macbook Air, it does rather look more jet starter than jet setter. The top speed CPU** but without the Solid State drive is £1389. The MacBook Pro, a straight replacement for my existing beast is £1759 with the 2.6Ghz Core 2Duo. Considering the Air is probably about 2-3x as fast as my G4 already...is it worth the extra £400 to get 1.7" extra screen and higher resolution? I am going to ponder this one...especially as the MacPro 8CPU monsters are out now - just the platform for some Erlang.
* so that is Harriet Harman sorted for the remainder of this parliament.
** A special ultra thin, lower power 1.8GHz Core2Duo
This is a Fencepost*. Once you chip prisoners, you chip ASBOs, drunk drivers, drug users, immigrants, asylum seekers, benefit claimants "to stop identity fraud", people on bail, all those easy targets that seem harmless and will not affect "you", but will establish precedent and build the infrastructure and be ready for when it will. It will not take a very great leap of imagination to suggest this "replaces" ID cards. Tin-foil hat, anyone?
I can see them now saying how much "easier" it will be. Easier. Easy is like "modern", "change" or "new". It is not the same as better, or to be an improvement. They eschew such words for they know it will be an total lie instead of half of one.
I tell you the only people who need to be "chipped like dogs" are those coming up with and agreeing to stuff like this - and when I say chipped, I mean in the 'Fargo' sense of the word.
*I summed the term up here thus:
The problem is, they will outlaw almost everything while enforcing very little. Imprisonment by stealth. People will not know they are encircled until it is too late - like putting in all these very deep, robust fence-posts with no fence panels. All seems open. One day you will wake up and the panels are in, you are trapped and they can decide what law they wish to impose to nail whomsoever they desire.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Excellent. One thing that utterly differentiates the British mentality and the Islamist is the ability to laugh at oneself. Islamism, like many fundie religions, is incapable of self-mockery and one wonders, of humour in general. In Dad's Army, one laughs at and with. I hope this new project makes the most of the format. it has the potential to be a cracker and may finally enable people who just happen to be Muslims to get these sorry people out of their hair.
However, I suspect it will be a PC lawyer's dream and will get shut down for "insulting the
I doubt the Tories will listen hard enough. Regardless, an alternative in the wings.
It is no surprise that Gordon Brown* is in favour of "opt out" organ donations. As I blogged previously back in June 2007, this mindset - "we own your body unless you ask us" - is appalling.
Now, in the article in the Sunday Telegraph, Brown does not say explicitly he is in favour, but I do think it is not an unreasonable conclusion to make considering he is floating this Statist air-biscuit of a plan.
He kicks off with typical spin:
However, we may need to do more to encourage more of us to donate.An opt-out is not "to encourage". How can it be? No, you are aiming to profit from complacency, from ambivalence.
Disgraceful, but not surprising.
"Soylent Red is PEOPLE!"
* who does not seem able to donate his nasal mucus to a hankie...
Thursday, 10 January 2008
They have achieved first plasma. The hope is to have full power tests in the Spring and then on to a full scale net energy producing unit.
Gore's face when that happens. I want a Gore-cam set up so we can see the moment his gravy train is shunted into the siding and lifted onto the flatbed headed for the scrap yard.
I am very much of the opinion that a company owner (owner, note, not employee), should have the absolute right to hire or not whomsoever they wish for whatever reason they choose and with absolutely no comeback or complaint. It is their company, and they should not be put in a situation where a prospective employee could, via the law, force the employer to hire them, regardless of if it were trumped up, circumstantial evidence or outright bias. Imagine how productive that employee would be, knowing that the employer had no choice in the matter? Funny how that mindset is also that of the Statist - no true choice. Second thoughts, I do not think it is in any way coincidental.
* the true Leftie concept of demanding the freedom to form a voluntary collective that seeks to implement an involuntary one, like the kind that now infests all our pubs.
The EU will demand it is not State subsidy, so we will see the UK Government subordinated by the EU. The Taxpayer, in effect, will have to pay a private entity enough of a margin to take on the debt so the EU does not get all upset. Of course, if, say, France did this, the EU might still have the ab-dabs but the French government knows that it is there to defend the French National Interest (even if the population disagrees about what that is, but that is another matter) and would shrug its shoulders and bog down any attempts to interfere in what it felt it needed to do - "Nous sommes l'EU! L'EU c'est France!".
Not so the UK Government* - it now acts as if it owes loyalty to the EU first, over and above its obligations towards the UK electorate and taxpayers. Scumbags!
* Not that I am in favour of the Northern Rock strategy, mind - one could argue that the EU is acting in the taxpayer's interest in putting a brake on the State assuming the risk for free. How about NR handing over more assets to the BoE to compensate for the selling on of the existing debt, eh? This way NR might actually PAY for its predicament!
Yes, and as you may well know, it only needs 3 terms to get the full whack and Labour is into its third term. See how the disingenuous dribbling of "a lifetime of service" falls by the wayside, the Labour MPs get their full pension and hopefully a sinecure or two in some QANGO.
Last night, Labour sources disclosed that one of the problems in getting MPs to show restraint is the high number who plan to retire at the end of this Parliament.
This is a problem because pensions are linked to their last salary.
Enjoy it while you may, folks, for when the Libertarian Party wins all those cushy numbers will be up.
When Mahmoud says Al Qaeda does not belong to Islam, he is not speaking theologically. I’m afraid Al Qaeda does belong to Islam if you look at it that way. But he is right that Al Qaeda does not belong to Islam as it is currently lived by the people in his community.Ain't that the truth.
Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha made similar points, a bit more eloquently, to Johns Hopkins University Professor Fouad Ajami: “Our American friends had not understood us when they came. They were proud, stubborn people and so were we. They worked with the opportunists, now they have turned to the tribes, and this is as it should be. The tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers.”It might also be the case that the tribes will be where Pakistan can sort itself out, if it gets possessed/remains possessed by the opportunists.
Read all of Michael's piece. Most illuminating. Hat tip, Samizdata.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Of course, anything the State does is not giving, though, is it?* This could well be even more sinister than that.
The State is in truth saying that they plan to force Taxpayers to pay for internet access for every child at home. The parents will be asked to pay towards it, too. Do you think this payment will be in some way means tested? I expect the lower to middle earners will get thoroughly shafted by this as with so many aspects of State largesse and taxation.
The report goes on:
In an interview with the Guardian, Knight signalled that the government was putting pressure on IT firms to bring down the cost of equipment if internet connections are in effect made compulsory for nearly six million children.I detect that the Government has come up with a plan - sold to them by IT companies, p'raps? - which demands every home to have broadband so some groaning, bloated monstrosity can be implemented. Instead of thinking of ways that do not require universal broadband, or working out some other strategy, the Government just decides to conduct mission creep - more like a mission marathon - and bootstrap this in, conveniently. Indeed, I suspect a great big national IT project forced upon schools is behind all this, a massive database on child records, attitudes, performance, targets etc etc etc. More admin for teachers. Yet more data to get lost. More control over independent schools. The broadband in each home, and with that the need for a computer - and how many sorts will "forget" that they have one already and flog it on eBay? - looks like the tip of a very expensive iceberg, if you ask me, in fact the tip looks bloody expensive as it is!**
The minister chunters:
"Obviously you need to make that affordable, you need to make that universal otherwise you just advantage those who can afford it. To some extent that's the case at the moment, where 50% of homes have got IT broadband, but they are hugely powerful educational tools ... we know from the research evidence the difference that information technology can make.""otherwise you just advantage those"? Jesus wept. No, it is not "obvious" that you need to "make it" universal. The State making it universal is lazy thinking***, Infantilising and Authoritarian. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if it were universal and that all parents would see that broadband for their kids was more important than Sky+. Grief, one trip to MacDonalds a month would pay for broadband. Couple of packs of B&H, even. 4 pints in a pub. A month. If parents are keen as to check up on homework set, I think that £10pcm could be found in all but the most desperate of cases - and then why not via charity - but we know this is not how the government works: they like "entitlement", a client state and dependency. They crave control and power.
Knight said there were "some crunchy negotiations ahead" with the big firms but said the government could in effect procure millions of new customers for them.So those who are paying for the IT, the Taxpayers, are not to chose which company or companies, but the State steps in and awards contracts "on our behalf"? Marvellous. Watch how the power of markets is swept aside and quality of service, rapid roll-out of new technology and low pricing are discarded once a captive market is obtained, a disconnect between those paying and those providing is put in place. Imbeciles! Of course the State is not all stupid - it will have just wedged itself into another niche, an arbiter, a gatekeeper between the purchasers and the providers. With such gatekeeping comes patronage. Corruption is not far away. Maybe it is not imbecilic, but just utterly careless and reckless with our money in pursuit of its aims. As usual.
For sure we all should know by now the State is a USELESS shopper and that new technology comes at a pace that outstrips the painfully slow negotiation mechanisms. What will we see? Old kit at higher prices than new kit? 50:1 or 100:1 contention ratios for this "service" that could hardly be given away? Who knows, but the fact is, as the State buys it, the taxpayers are locked in and must pay under threat of being locked up.
All this so some greasy IT company can win a contract to not deliver an overambitious and potentially invasive yet insecure project who's cost will spiral out of all proportion except to the ego of the commissioning Minister.
And when all is done, something given for free is often not respected.
Over to one side, yet equally poisonous, is the ever lurking
* The State "giving" actually involves taking, often without consent. The State cannot "Give" anything, for it does not have anything of its own to give. All it has at its disposal is tax, which is not given, but taken and assets and authority on loan from the electorate.
** I bet it will not be fully Mac compatible, too, especially if those scumbags at Microsoft or Accenture have their dirty fingernails in the pie.
*** Do the key advantages need a broadband connection and with it a PC? Surely text messages convey the key points? By the time this gets in place, it might be cheaper just to provide it over mobiles. It appears to be a bootstrapping WIBNI fest.
Monday, 7 January 2008
He has had the hairies to come back and say he was wrong after all, as some wag had set up a £500pcm direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK on his account...
What is extraordinary is that the Bank is refusing to divulge the details of the person who set up the DD, citing "data protection". Hold on, the person commited a criminal act, theft, and the Bank is being coy?
Can anyone show if the Bank is allowed or forced to do this?
Friday, 4 January 2008
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Here they are in no particular order:
1. The LPUK launch rapidly gains ground and favourable grass-roots public exposure and buy-in, shaking up the Westminster Village much as Patrick McGoohan did to Portmeirion - be seeing you! - supplimental: the tectonic plates shift, splitting all three parties on their way to forming into Leftie, Centre-Left, Centre-Right and, of course, Libertarian groups. The LibDems to cease to exist, natch.
2. The EU
3. Gordon Brown is brought down by a plot hatched by Miliband, only for Miliband to be beaten in the run-off by Milburn. Delicious.
4. No mass murder at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, unless you count the Chinese ruthlessly putting down an Islamist plot to cause same. That'll learn 'em.
5. The environazi Peoples Watermellon Resistance Brigades to be exposed as the control freaks and Authoritarians that they are.
6. The Median Wage Year to become a de facto measurement, exposing the true extent of government waste to the electorate.
7. Someone stumps up the £100m needed to fund IEC Fusion full scale functioning energy-generating prototype who will also enable the UK to use the technology FoC.
8. Selfish Gene: The health, prosperity and comfort of my extended family, friends, political allies and business associates blossoms, grows and continues uninterrupted.
I chip in thus:
Democracy without Rule of Law will not stop the mob taking your stuff and stopping you doing what you want.
If you have Rule of Law (as in property rights over your body, thoughts, assets and capital, few laws applied transparently and equally to all) then Democracy is a bonus, yet what can an oligarchy do to you if rule of law still exists? It must first remove or undermine Rule of Law before it can do you any real harm.
One could argue that Democracy is the least worst safeguard against the erosion of Rule of Law, but that Rule of Law is, actually, what is of most practical benefit to people. Democracy is just a means to the end, the end being Rule of Law.
The Libertarian Party is now in existence. The website is up, with an overview of its stance.
This could well be the beginning of the end of the LibLabCon "consensus".
It is an overview of the party's position. More detailed policy and objectives will follow shortly.
Go take a look and, if interested, log on to the forum.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
The government really does intend to deny NHS treatment from people without giving them the option not to pay for it. Authoritarian just does not seem to quite cover it, even. There is a hint of indentured servitude about it all.
This, of course, is being dressed up as a "Constitution for the NHS", where so-called "patient rights" actually translate into obligations and limits on freedom. The BBC appears to swallow it whole and not even offer a whimper of dissent or critical analysis of the implications this brings with it. The ease by which the BBC abdicates its duties towards the people of the UK appears to have no bounds. Again. However many times it happens, it still has the capacity to disgust.
I am always wary of the term "rights", for "rights" do tend to result in obligations upon others, usually to concede or pay. Freedoms have a responsibility upon the same person who has the freedoms in question but this is something quite different. The NHS is not a freedom but it was surely created as a contract with the people to exchange taxation for universal§ free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare? Rationing is already rife and this is another brick in that wall, but it goes much further, as it enters the abstract. Rationing due to age or risk outsid
We can expect to see a similar spin put on any so-called "bill of rights" in general. What the government calls "rights and responsibilities" are in fact "obligations and permissions" - you have obligations and once these are carried out you might get permission to access the "entitlements". Did anyone break a law here so as to give the State the authority to act in this way? Don't think so.
By wanting to introduce such measures, the State is abusing its position as de-facto monopolistic provider.
§ universal provision can trigger abuse, but there are other ways to deal with it and the NHS has other fundamental dysfunctions to resolve before trying to fix this issue.
For Britain, 2008 will be a year of real and serious changes.Not only the C-word, but a bunch of R's* as well.
With important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services.
A year for stepping up major long-term reform to meet challenges ranging from globalisation and global warming to the great unfinished business of social reform in our country.
And we will continue to work with our international partners to counter the ongoing threat of global terrorism, most recently witnessed in the atrocities in Pakistan.
So we will not shirk but see through changes and reforms in the vital areafor our future - secure energy, pensions, transport, welfare, education, health and national security.
I am not interested in change. I want to see IMPROVEMENT.
EDIT: Lets see those paras again, substituting "change" for "alteration" and "reform" for "revision"
Come on, Gordo, light my fire...
For Britain, 2008 will be a year of real and serious alterations.
With important legislation making long-term alterations in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable alterations in public services.
A year for stepping up major long-term revisions to meet challenges ranging from globalisation and global warming to the great unfinished business of social revision in our country.
And we will continue to work with our international partners to counter the ongoing threat of global terrorism, most recently witnessed in the atrocities in Pakistan.
So we will not shirk but see through alterations and revisions in the vital area for our future - secure energy, pensions, transport, welfare, education, health and national security.