Nick Cohen has this to say in The Guardian of all places.
I have nothing more to add really except Oliver Stone doesn’t live in a country that is out of toilet paper.
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
Nick Cohen has this to say in The Guardian of all places.
I have nothing more to add really except Oliver Stone doesn’t live in a country that is out of toilet paper.
This made my day.
The local rag, the Blackpool Gazette, printed a story that was a little more modest although they did post the video shot at the time, perhaps to garner readers” sympathy for the celebrity
environmental warriors eco-loon trespassers.
A-list celebrities Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie visited the proposed shale gas drill site off Preston New Road, Little Plumpton, to lend their support and bake a few cakes for the Lancashire Nannas campaign.
Lancashire Nannas? There doesn’t seem to be many of those in the video (follow the above Gazette link). Perhaps the Gazette meant ‘nanas as in right ‘nanas.
Emma, who has been a Greenpeace member since she was 16, said she was inspired by the fight put up by the Nannas and the other local campaign groups against the Government and industry which supports fracking.
Hollywood actors and actresses with carbon footprints the size of Texas absolutely never fail to pass up a
celebrity whoredom opportunity virtue waving exercise anti cheap energy for people not half as well off as them protest.
Emma said: “The Lancashire Nannas and other groups have fought so bravely against big business. We wanted to come along and support them.
Wot, no patented quotes from Big Red Dictionary of Socialist Epithets? Perhaps she forgot to bring her spectacles. She missed out on “evil capitalists” “vile economic realists” Gaia rapers and planet killers. Why does she think that supporting a bunch of Luddite Shreddies knitters is the sensible thing to do?
I went ballistic when I found that David Cameron came back from the Paris global warming conference having agreed to cut carbon emissions and then right away okayed 200 new fracking licences. On the one hand, he was saying the world should cut fossil fuels, and on the other he was preparing to start a new fossil fuel industry. The Government has removed support for solar power and has virtually called a halt to onshore wind energy schemes, but is pushing this dirty fossil fuel industry.
So, Emma, how many of your countless trans-Atlantic flights were powered by windmills and solar panels rather than that filthy fossil fuel that gets you into such a tizzy? Did you arrive by bicycle or a filthy fossil fuel guzzling car? And how did you bake those cute little anti-fracking cupcakes? Over a cow-shit fire pit? There was certainly enough of it around once the farmer had finished spraying his own protest over his property and uninvited interlopers. How about that much vaunted cake baking competition? What filthy fossil fuel was used to bake those world changing comestibles you seem to think gives you a free pass to break the law?
It is disgusting, hypocritical and an example of how the Government is hand in glove with big corporations.
And you, Emma, are a disgusting and hypocritical example of how a stupid, anti-humanity celebrity bimbo works hand in glove with Big Green. Do you possess even a nanogram of self awareness?
The danger is that all of the efforts of these magnificent Nannas and the residents to fight this industry may be ignored by national government. It is undemocratic, especially having been told by the Government and Greg Clark that decisions should be made on issues locally.
Undemocratic? Because a small minority of dummy chucking, deluded anti-realists, some of whom seem to have been imported from other parts of the UK to make up the numbers, aren’t getting their way? I’m a local and I haven’t been consulted (nor has anyone I know) so how the hell do you, Emma “I Love Greenpeace” Thompson, know whether or not the people of the Fylde want fracking or not? No one that I know is against it. Why is that? Because we are sick to death of paying through the nose to heat our homes. It’s not like we can hop on a plane and piss off to the Riviera to keep warm.
Lancashire Nanas campaigner Tina Rothery said: “It is wonderful to have ‘Nanna McPhee’ – Emma, and Nanna Sophie here with us today.
We’ve met Tina on this blog before. If you are reading this, Tina, please explain to me why “Nanna McPhee” (Who she?) is trespassing on private property in breach of a high court injunction? Does her greenie credentials trump the law of the land?
However, the visit was condemned by pro-fracking group the North West Energy Task Force. Member Tony Raynor, from Lytham said: “I won’t be lectured by a London-based celebrity and multimillionaire, especially when lots of local jobs and much-needed investment in Lancashire are at stake.” And a farmer was also spotted spraying muck on the fields close to the bake off (Video courtesy of Andy Ball and Rock FM)
Typical Anti-fracking Gazette. A few paltry lines at the end of the article for the pro-frackers and barely a mention of the farmer. Especially when the Thompsons and their Greenpeace cheer leaders get this extra puff piece. The mail wasn’t much better.
I used to know Tony Raynor because I worked for his Dad, a very astute businessman, many moons ago. When I knew Tony he was a teenager trying to fill some big boots and making a muck of things. He now runs a successful telecommunications company. It’s nice to see the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree after all.
I’m left wondering why the cupcake clowns weren’t arrested for breaching a high court injunction. Maybe the paltry fines, or rather lack of them, would fail to outweigh the cost of cleaning cow shit from police vehicles?
A few weeks back, some Ignorant Person saw fit to put up on Samizdata a short comment implying, snarkily, that the U.S. is the worst of all possible worlds when it comes to the gun-murder rate.
A few of us took issue with that; I rather think the rest thought the remark not worth dignifying with a response.
However, “Sultan Knish,” a.k.a. Daniel Greenfield, who writes columns for various anti-Left online mags and has his own website at sultanknish.com, put up a doozy on the subject today; although I wish he’d found some other adjective than “Democrat,” because not all Dems are Dim on the issue. In fact some of the “gun-rights” activist-scholars are, or were, themselves Democrats*; and the excerpt below makes the point that not all cities of Obama-voters have these appalling murder rates.
But the fact remains that the worst cities certainly are run by lefty and/or race-baiting Democrats. So here is a mere excerpt (but note: YrsTrly has not verified the stats for herself). Suggest reading the whole thing….
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
*For instance, Eric Raymond has an interesting page, Eric’s Gun Nut Page, that describes criminologist Gary Kleck’s work and political stance. More good stuff for those who think guns might be part of the solution, with links, too.
Well, dear Reader, from the title you would be justified in wondering whether Fossil Fuels even have ethics. Are FF’s conscious? Can they think? Are they more Platonic or Aristotelian, or perhaps even Hegelian in their metaphysics?
In this little number, Alex Epstein — a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute and the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, a think-tank thinking about energy resources — debates one Bill McKibben, sometimes said to be on the same plane of Enviroloonyism as the Bore.
I present this not because I think you will wish to watch the whole thing (unless you are into masochism), nor because I think Mr. Epstein, be his heart every so rightly placed, is the greatest debater since Socrates or somebody (he could learn a lot from James O’Keefe), but because I am genuinely interested in whether Mr. McKibben’s performance strikes you as it does me. It might take you a mere 10 minutes, or maybe half an hour, of watching and hearing the man. If no one cares to commit his gut reaction to pixels, I will tell you what I made of the McK performance, in a day or two.
Go pour yourself a nice tall chill glass of bathtub gin, neat, and settle in. –Oh, bring your Pet Rock. You may feel the need to be Soothed even beyond the powers of the gin.
Rod Liddle, Sun columnist, goes off on one.
TALLY Ho! No sooner are the Conservatives back in office than they’ve decided to have a go at the poor foxes once again.
Actually I am of the opinion that they are trying to fix a half-arsed law that does little for either camp. Trying to turn it into a Toffs or Us campaign because it suits your townie tunnel vision is unworthy of decent journalism. But then, this is the Sun we are talking about.
Probably because there’s not much important going on in the world, is there?
When trying to repeal bad laws you have to begin somewhere. The fox hunting travesty is as good a place to start as any.
Just the EU falling to bits and jihadi maniacs chopping heads off all over the place and Britain swamped by more and more immigration.
More bad laws to repeal, yes?
The Prime Minister wanted to waste some parliamentary time loosening the laws on fox hunting.
I assume this was David Cameron’s gift to his local pals — the Cotswold Posse.
All those rich monkeys in his constituency who enjoy nothing more than ripping a defenceless animal to bits.
But wait! Riding to the rescue are the Scottish nationalists!
Because Toffs on horseback are far more dangerous than the SNP interfering in English matters that should not concern them? Your priorities are as skewed as the perceived ones you are whinging about, Ron.
They’ve said they will vote against any Tory proposals to relax the hunting ban. Despite the fact that they shouldn’t have anything to do with the matter because the rules don’t apply to Scotland.
But Ron agrees with them so it’s okay for the SNP to gang up in the House of Commons in precisely the way they promised not to. The English faction of Parliament should interfere right back and give the SNP a bloody nose. Oh, wait. We don’t get to practice that privilege. But that’s okay because foxes are cute and cuddly and never kill livestock. Evah!
Opportunistic hypocrites, says Mr Cameron. But the foxes don’t care where salvation comes from — any port in a storm.
I despise Cameron but he has a point. As for any port in a storm, it depends what is waiting for you on the dock. In the foxes case it’s poison, lethal gas or a spade over the head. At least they have a chance to escape horse and hounds.
My own guess is that the SNP are furiously against fox hunting because most members of the party have the same coloured fur as a fox.
Waaaaaycist! That’s waaaaycist against gingers that is. To presume they have fur and not hair. Tut tut.
They’re worried the hunters might get confused. The toffs out on horseback spending the entire day pursuing what they think is a fox — and then they find the hounds have just eaten Nicola Sturgeon.
Ron thinks Nicola is a fox. Does he kiss her picture every night before he goes to bed?
Still, at least the Nats are on the right side for once.
No, they’re not. This is political interference on steroids. Will you still feel the same way if they join the Guardianista inspired witch hunt against Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid journalists? Only stupid turkeys vote for Christmas.
The British public is hugely opposed to fox hunting, according to every opinion poll carried out on the matter.
According the opinion polls we were going to have another hung Parliament. How is Coalition 2.0 going for you Ron?
Rightly, they consider it a horrible and barbaric business.
So was the invasion of Iraq but that didn’t stop New Labour did it? They believed that foxes were more deserving of protection than the civilians who died during the ousting of Saddam. They are still dying because IS filled the void. Save your indignation for them, Ron. Let’s have some honest perspective here.
Every bit as barbaric as all those other sports we’ve banned over the years — bear baiting, for example. Or cock fights, or dog fights.
Which take place in pits with no chance of escape.
Just because fox hunting is undertaken, in the main, by posh people, it doesn’t make it any less barbaric. A psychopath wearing a pink jacket is still a psychopath.
Where to begin? Foxes are an apex predator and are culled because they kill livestock. You know, all those cute and fluffy lambs, chickens and ducklings. Dressing up in costume and riding to hounds, in Ron’s world, is psychotic because it is mostly done by toffs even though, in reality, it isn’t. Bashing an animal’s brains out with the back of a shovel gets no mention, presumably because the deed is done by salt of the earth common man and is therefore not psychotic at all. This is pure hypocrisy. It is bare-faced, townie lefty, no nowt bollocks.
But there’s something about the Conservatives that revels in ripping an animal to bits.
I seem to recall a few Conservatives voting for the ban. Must have slipped Ron’s mind.
If they’re not trying to bring back fox hunting they’re gassing badgers — for no sane reason whatsoever.
Because TB infected badgers don’t exist and neither does Bovine TB.
Mr Cameron and his well-bred cronies have no time for our wildlife, as they show time and time again.
There’s an awful lot of Labour voting farmers and country folk in my part of the world who regularly shoot rabbits and crows. Aren’t they wildlife too?
If it’s furry and it’s got a pulse, kill it. If it’s a bird of prey, let the gamekeepers shoot it or poison it.
Your PETA-coat is showing, Ron.
And yet I thought the Conservatives were sick of being portrayed as the “nasty party”?
It’s all Fatcha’s fault.
Here’s the deal, Dave. Sort out the economy. Try to raise the wages of our poorest people a little bit, huh?
Nine quid an hour isn’t enough then? What do you suppose this piece of
Tory socialist insanity is going to do for the economy?
Decide what we’re going to do about IS and all those refugees trying to get into the country.
With all those bleeding hearts and EUphiles voting against him? Not a chance.
And leave the foxes alone.
If you saw what a fox does to livestock it would make you puke, Ron. But since you are a townie you keep yourself insulated against red blooded reality and arrogantly insist that you know what the scamelling hell you are talking about.
This day of evil is finally drawing to a close. The leftists in Paris may well have (as they do every year) slaughtered a pig – as part of their celebration of the treacherous betrayal (“come out – we promise you and your men safe conduct”) and savage murder of the Governor of an old fortress in Paris – a fortress in which there were seven (7) prisoners, none of whom were there for their political opinions.
Thus the left celebrate the principles of the left. Treachery, robbery (for the real goal of the operation was to steal weapons and other goods) and murder.
Soon all of France was to be convulsed in mass robbery (of the Church – and of many ordinary people who were far from “aristocratic”) and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people (see the works of William Doyle and others). And Europe was to be convulsed by the designs of the French Revolutionaries to bring the collectivist doctrines of Rousseau to power everywhere. His idea that the Law Giver knows the “General Will”, better than the individual persons themselves, so (in Marxist fashion) people have to be “forced to be free” against their false consciousness. If need be robbed and slaughtered – for their own good. And with their own consent – as their cries of protest (and screams of pain) are but mental confusion, not what they “really” believe.
The French Revolution does not show the danger of taking liberty too far – because it was not about liberty, it was about power. The Revolutionaries talked of liberty – but they lied, as followers of Rousseau tend to do (using their words as a mist to blind the unwary).
Paper money (forced on people on the pain of death), theft of property, the murder of the innocent (of all levels of society) – these were and are the principles of the French Revolution. Its criminal lust for unlimited power (not just in France – but over the world) under the mask of “liberty”, which destroyed the rule-of-law and the security of persons and possessions.
People who cried for religious tolerance (in fact granted by Louis XVI years before), and practiced religious persecution – of the most savage kind.
People who cried for the end of serfdom (largely unknown in France for centuries), and an end to torture (“putting the question” had actually already been abolished in French Roman Law), but actually introduced serfdom to the state, and reintroduced torture (in all its forms).
These were the French Revolutionaries – if one judges them by their deeds, or even looks carefully at the meaning of their words (rather than the nice sound the words make).
But let us leave the Rousseau evil of the Revolutionaries aside – and turn to more hopeful things, dark green jackets and black buttons…….
Sir William Stewart (Colonel Stewart) in 1799 (some ten years after the Revolution started – and after its forces had overwhelmed most of Europe with vast slaughter) published his thoughts on “light infantry”.
People who fought as individuals and in small groups – but could (if worked with correctly) help defeat vast enemy forces.
Colonel Stewart studied the Croats who had resisted (for the Hapsburgs) the invasions of the Ottomans – for centuries. Helping hold back the forces of despotism (that recognised no rule-of-law, no protection of property rights from the state) that might otherwise have destroyed Europe.
He also studied the mountain people of the Tyrol – famous for both their individualism and their loyal service (there is no contradiction – the people of Eastern Tennessee are much the same in these aspects, Southerners who supported human freedom over tribalism in the 1860s and have supported the elephant over the donkey ever since ).
The great revolt of Andreas Hofer – the innkeeper turned leader of the “Reactionary” forces of the Tyrol was yet to come (but the spirit had been known for centuries).
Hofer opposed the takeover of the Tyrol by Bavaria – not the relatively conservative place we know today, but then an ally of Revolutionary France and ruled by the bureaucrat (and rumoured ally of the illuminated ones) M. Von Montegelas – a man who made a great show of “abolishing serfdom” (actually just a few old rituals by this time in Bavaria) whilst actually introducing serfdom – both for children (via his system of compulsory state brainwashing of the young) and adults (via mass conscription). Nothing (not Church property, or even other countries, if they were small and weak – he was not a man of great courage ) was safe from Montegelas, a sort of “mini me” Napoleon. And Bavaria was backed by the vast forces of France.
Andreas Hofer eventually lost and was killed – famously giving the order to fire at his own execution. But the idea of light infantry is sound – it just can not win major wars on its own.
Nor should the experience of the North American wars, against the French and some Indian tribes, and against the American colonists, be forgotten. The “King’s Rifles” had already been born – although still in red jackets….
Sir William Stewart was supported by Colonel Manningham (Equerry to the King) and in 1800 the Rifle Corps (the 95 regiment of foot) was born.
It was the first British infantry regiment since the Civil War to have green uniforms – I recently went to a Civil War re enactment, and whilst everybody raves over the red uniforms of the New Model Army (red because the dye was cheap), but there is something about dark green uniforms against the green fields and woods (and not just of England). Yes it is camouflage – but it is more than that, but I lack the gift of words to explain what I mean.
People will be familiar with the exploits of “the Rifles” from such things as the “Sharpe” novels – but the basic message is historically accurate and simple to state.
By out fighting French skirmishers (not so well trained, or so well TRUSTED, and armed with muskets not Baker rifles) British skirmishers – fighting as individuals and in small groups, were able to help change battles (and thereby help change wars). Negate some of the advantage of the enemy in numbers – and cause confusion and chaos among French (and other) armies that were organised as vast masses of conscripts.
The forces “equality and fraternity” could be defeated by the forces of liberty. Skill, creative thought, and voluntary service.
Those men in dark green jackets with black buttons have (under various names of regiment) fought in many wars since then – surprising people who assume that the British army is a force of robots who do not fight as individuals and in small groups, and who can not think without detailed orders.
Their story is little known – and the reader should look it up for themselves.
[TRIGGER WARNING: The following blog post contains irony and may be triggering for special little snowflakes]
A student group has been accused of sexism and racism for banning all men and white people from attending an equality event.
Goldsmiths University student union have been slammed after refusing to allow anybody that isn’t a non-white female from attending the event – organised to protest against inequality and celebrate racial unity.
Just when I thought the legions of Social Justice Warriors (aka SJW’s) couldn’t get any worse, they keep proving me wrong. It’s a bit like the old adage, “If you make something idiot proof, god will just make a better idiot”.
So, Prince Charles has been to Washington DC (as have I) but whilst I flew steerage in an American Airlines A330 (and had to change at Philly – the most confusing airport this side of Mars) he went in style. He went on a chartered A320 configured as a private jet that costs GBP250,000 a hop. Or approx. 800 times what I paid (hard to say exactly – there were several hops on that hoilday which included Key West). Well, I guess it evens out because he got to meet Obama and I trogged the Smithsonians until my feet hurt – badly. He got a gong for his tireless crusades (or whatever) on the environment. He almost certainly clocked more CO2 than I can manage in a fecking lifetime. And then he delivers a lecture on the environment… Because the A320 normally carries just over about 160 passengers and not just a dickhead and his moll.
But that’s OK because it is only the little people who deserve to be taxed out of the air and not the nobs and he is a nob in every sense.
A Waitrose magazine showcasing the food of Israel has been hammered online for ignoring what activists regard to be the ‘illegal occupation of Palestine’.
The supermarket chain’s monthly food magazine ‘Waitrose Kitchen’ contained a 32-page brochure called Taste of Israel.
But the glossy advert, sponsored by Israel’s Government Tourist Board, has sparked outrage among campaigners – with some claiming it ignores what they believe is an ‘apartheid regime’.
Yah what! This is about food and tourism. Does anyone honestly expect the Israeli tourist board to include a disclaimer along the lines of, “The shakshuka is to die for but if you lived in Gaza we’ve already killed you. Sorry.” Or “Come see our historic sites, dine on our cuisine and we chuck in a side of ‘genocide’”. This is ludicrous. I have Chinese, Iranian and Russian cookbooks. Does this endorse their governmental actions? Of course not! So why are the “activists” so het-up?
Rabid anti-semitism is part of it. The politics of displaced envy from the bien pissants of the West is part of it. By that I mean they are projecting their own feelings on politics onto the Palestinians and further assuming (often correctly) there is a great deal of envy from the Palestinians for a rich and advanced country next door. It is a form of redistributive fantasy which is of course a subset of the pernicious fixed wealth fallacy. Basically if Israel didn’t exist or “shared” then Gaza City would look like Tel Aviv. Yeah, right. The Intel i5 in this laptop was designed in Israel. He has a demon-ridden laptop – avert your eyes children! It may take on other forms!
Like become a MacBook Air or something?
Let’s call a spade a spade here. Israel is prosperous and (generally) reasonable (nowhere is perfect) because since 1948 Israelis have moved heaven (and a lot of earth) to create that and I have never blamed them for fighting like a cornered tiger to defend that. I know it is more complicated (and the settlements were wrong both morally and strategically) but… I take the Randian view here that if it is a choice between civilization and the building and inventing things that flows from that.
Israel has just had an election. It passed over quite peaceably. On the other side of the fence though…
When the Hamasites took power they took it upon themselves to storm their opponent’s offices, wreck the place and defenestrate anyone they found. They also stormed his private residence and stole his Nobel* and… I am not making this up… Someone stole his toilet. They stole his fucking toilet. One day it may be found and authenticated and placed in a museum with people solemnly shuffling past it in awe like it was the Grail or something. One day there maybe a cult of the One True Holy Aracrapper or they could go to B&Q and look at the many false Aracrappers. Well, as long as ISIS doesn’t get there and smash it first as an idol. I could say more on ISIS on this sort of score but that will have to wait.
Anyway, Israel is a civilized place that grows, makes and does things people want. What have Hamas ever done for the general (or their own) good except (sporadically lethal) amateur rocketry and furious Islamist rhetoric? I’ll stick with my computer and a Jaffa orange but thanks for the offer Hamas but just do fuck-off. As a Brit born in 1973 I grew-up through the slings and arrows of the IRA and I’m bored of this game now. I can’t imagine what it is like for an Israeli. I can’t imagine it is much fun for a normal Gazan – living in a continual bullet festival. Gaza could be a really nice little city state (the beaches look great) – a sort of Monaco on the other side of the Med. Who is stopping this? Well, according to the ludicrous response in the West to a British supermarket issuing a load of Israeli recipes** it ain’t just the Kings of Jihad*** even if they sit upon the Porcelain Throne of the Arafat****.
*Dear Gods what a sick joke that was! It is still to be located. I guess when Dr Jones is mended he can go on a quest for it.
**Which deeply ironically are not entirely dissimilar to those from the rest off the Eastern Med from Turkey round to Egypt.
***Not to be confused with the Kings of Leon.
****Not to be confused with “Game of Thrones”.
Will this “people are evil for wanting to live the same decent life I enjoy” twerp ever learn that the climate isn’t doing anything it hasn’t done before and that people are not a disease?
Sir David Attenborough is calling on global leaders to step up their actions to curb climate change, saying that they are in denial about the dangers it poses despite the overwhelming evidence about its risks.
Curb climate change? Srsly? Why not stop the Earth in its planetary orbit as well? Or bring about the halt of time itself? How about chastising the Mighty Sun Dragon for going into a deep funk this last solar cycle or two and making all those ghastly, rent seeking climate alarmists look silly?
The only overwhelming evidence Rottenbore should be concerned about is his own denial of reality because his “evidence” of man made climate catastrophe doesn’t actually exist outside of a poorly programmed computer model and his own addled belief.
The TV naturalist said those who wield power need to use it: “Wherever you look there are huge risks.
Yes, because there are horrid, black smog monsters hiding behind every bush and lamp post waiting to devour poor ickle childruns if we don’t do what the nice TV naturalist says.
“The awful thing is that people in authority and power deny that, when the evidence is overwhelming and they deny it because it’s easier to deny it – much easier to deny it’s a problem and say ‘we don’t care’,” Sir David said.
Because the Climate Change Act 2008 that is currently impoverishing millions is a figment of our national imagination? Because the EU’s desire to legislate us back to pastoralism is nothing more than a rampant leap into a bleak future ruled by uncontrolled, planet slaying techno-terror? Because Obama’s credentials as a foaming at the mouth “green warrior” who wants to kill the tyrannical XL pipeline is clearly a smoke screen for his latent tendency to eagerly suck Big Oil Koch?
I think you doth protest too much, Davie.
In terms of climate change, “we won’t do enough and no one can do enough, because it’s a very major, serious problem facing humanity; but at the same time it would be silly to minimise the size of the problem”, he told Sky News.
We’ve been dealing with the problem since before we swung out of the trees and trespassed on Gaia’s verdant lawn. We’ve survived far worse, and will no doubt continue to do so unless idiots like Davie get their way and succeed in shutting civilisation down.
Later this year, a crucial UN climate summit will be held, at which world leaders have pledged to agree to tough cuts in their carbon emissions, to ensure the increase in global warming does not exceed 2°C – beyond which its consequences become increasingly devastating.
What global warming? There are teens who will vote for the first time this year who have never seen global warming.
We should be concerned of a devastating rise of 2 °C? So how the Scammelling heck did poley bears and every other living creature survive the Holocene Climate Optimum that saw temperature rises up to 8 °C higher than those of today? Gosh the elephant poo building up in the room is really beginning to smell rank (but at least it’s organic so it can be ignored). Take that weapons grade peg off your nose, Davie, and smell the crap you’re depositing all around. Why should we be the only ones to suffer?
Although that meeting is not scheduled to take place until December, the scale of the task ahead is huge and world leaders are already working towards the summit.
And will end in the same, obscenely expensive failure because the likes of India, China and now Germany will not play ball. But there’s a silver lining in every extreme weather cloud – the airlines really love you alarmist types as you fly higgledy-piggledy across the globe on your self-righteous mission to re-invent the Mesolithic hunter gatherer society.
However Sir David is concerned that, despite the increasingly obvious scale of the threat climate change poses, leaders are not taking the matter as seriously as they should.
Er…didn’t he say that already?
Oh, wait. Not quite We’ve done “overwhelming”, “increasingly devastating” and “very major serious”. “Obvious scale of threat” was missing but you cleverly managed to fix that. Well done.
“Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years have all human beings got together to face one danger that threatens us – never.
The “history of humanity” is ten million years old? Who knew? Typical of those lazy Australopithicines to miss the boat by about six million years. They really should hang their brow-ridged, hominid heads in shame. They should have organised a mass rally, lined up to be eaten by the local top predators of the day and saved the Earth a lot of grief the selfish swines.
Then there’s that troublesome “one danger”. The one danger that threatens us with an increase in plant food that will expand all those naughty, carbon sequestrating forests we intend to burn in the furnaces of the Drax power station. Personally I believe the ginormous, Scammel-off asteroid floating around out there that has our name written on it is, on reflection, something we should all worry more about especially if Bruce Willis isn’t around to save us all.
“It’s a big ask, but the penalty of not taking any notice is huge,” he said.
Yes, it means the greenie gravy train will come to a grinding halt. Due to the wrong kind of climate on the rails if nature pulls yet another one of her amusing, ironic tricks.
Sir David’s comments come two days after a separate warning – on the dangers posed by the booming human population.
Ah yes, the spectre of Malthus rises once more from its deepest depths of greenie gloom and doom. Davie’s love affairs with the ghost of Eden past and the ghoul of homo mass extinctus (but not him or his, naturally) is getting very stale.
“It’s desperately difficult, the dangers are apparent to anybody,” he told The Independent.
“We can’t go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because the Earth is finite and you can’t put infinity into something that is finite.
“So if we don’t do something about it – the natural world that is – we will starve,” Sir David said.
Forever? That’s a long time, Davie. But not as long as your knickers wetting hyperbole, eh?
And now we’ve added “desperately difficult” to the list. When all else fails, alliterate. It’s what I would do if I was desperate.
Last month, a newly discovered species of beetle was named Trigonopterus attenboroughi, in honour of Sir David Attenborough. Alexander Riedel, the researcher who discovered the 2.14mm-long species, said he called the beetle after Sir David because he enjoyed watching his television programmes so much as a child.
Soon to become extinct due to Davie’s feared CAGW armageddon? So sad. Too bad.
This is not the first time he has had a species named after him. In 2009, a flesh-eating pitcher plant, so large that it can swallow and devour rats whole, was discovered on Mount Victoria in the Philippines and named Nepenthes attenboroughii.
But he has yet to find one big enough to digest people. Take heart, Davie. I’m sure the dying Earth will oblige you.
Two years later, a one-millimetre species of goblin spider was discovered on Horn Island, off the coast of Australia, and named Prethopalpus attenboroughi, or Attenborough’s goblin spider.
But the most nasty of spiders is nowhere near as ugly or as poisonous as Davie Rottenbore and his alarmist, anti-humanity rants.
Over at Libertarian Home, Rocco has put up “The Parable of the Lures and Fishes.” This reminded me of a hook that has been stuck in my craw for some years, and I find myself lured into venting. Hence this infuriating tale. Fellow Felines, sharpen your claws and gather round.
For close to a score of years I have had occasional bouts of war with hordes of vandalistic raccoons who think it clever to tear holes in my roof and set up housekeeping in my attic, destroying whatever is up there, including the insulation. This would have resulted in Total War, except that there are very important laws prohibiting Total War against raccoons, the poor defenseless things. I mean, I certainly feel for the homeless, some of them anyway, but, well, think 410 A.D. & ff.
As a result, there are ongoing great waves of invasion. At one point the Licensed Trappers put a trap (enclosure trap, cage snaps shut if critter isn’t careful, no harm to coon, who then enjoys a pleasant stay of several days at a lovely Sanitarium and Spa — observation, medical treatment if necessary, company’s own water, meals free, all mod. cons. — before being released into the wild, at least 50 miles away) — Ahem. Yes, put a trap right next to the entry the latest gang had torn into the roof. One of them took the bait and was trapped, I tell you, TRAPPED!!! He disapproved of this and sent a loud SOS to Dolores Umbrage, who has resided next door for a quarter century (seems like a quarter of a millenium) and whose raison d’être is to Snoop & Snitch. Antennae quivering with excitement, she got it loud & clear, and when the trapper came to remove the raccoon, she came over and gave him jolly what-for.
I discovered this as she was walking down the driveway toward her own place. I asked the trapper what was going on. He explained.
As this was the third or fourth instance of Dolores’s executing her mission at our expense, and creating entirely unnecessary legal troubles — one of them seriously damaging — I thought I should have a talk with her. I went and asked her wotthehell. She said, I kid you not:
“That poor thing was screaming in that cage, which is too small for it, and the trap was put there to LU-U-URRE him! He wouldn’t have been there otherwise. It never should have been up there in the first place.”
This left me utterly nonplussed. I wish I could report that I replied assertively with something intelligent, but as she is a vindictive b**** who loves causing real trouble for people (and not just us!), I didn’t want to tell her exactly what I thought of her. I should have told her the obvious: The trap was THERE because it’s directly in front of the door to the current Raccoon Hotel. “How about I send ‘em over to your house, honeylamb? How about you house the poor dears for awhile. I hope you know a good roofer.” Good grief!
I delivered a brief statement on the necessity of tolerance when people must live close to one another (well, it IS related!) and went back home. The trapper was just finishing up. He says their company gets calls every day from Animal Control, who have been notified by one or another of Dolores’s spiritual brethren of just such dreadful acts by the trappers. He said Animal Control is used to this and doesn’t take it seriously.
What a relief.
Now this remarkable piece of left, or Dim, or both, honesty, 52 sec., from The Blaze. Video of the commentary, 52 seconds’ worth, is there too; per Blaze, it’s been pulled from UT.
If anyone anywhere on the globe doesn’t see that these slimeballs think they have the perfect right to absolute rule because of their moral superiority (and, of course, way superior smarts) — he or she needs to check into a home for the severely retarded.
Obamacare Architect: We Passed the Law Thanks to the ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’
Nov. 10, 2014 9:47am Zach Noble
One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.
In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”
Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.
“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”
[Original introduction edited slightly. --J.]
There is an industry which concerns itself with helping to create these when Mother Nature isn’t quite doing her job. But it needs to be regulated, you know. It really does. Even Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of whom more below, says so, though he otherwise disagrees with Ms. Cristina Richie, whose views are our topic today. (The gentleman’s remark rather sounds as though he approves of “regulation,” and disapproves of its lack, on principle.)
Anyway, it turns out that Carbon Legacies, even when naturally occurring, are not an unmitigated good. Indeed, one might question whether they are a Good Thing at all, even as others are delighted with theirs, or with the prospects of acquiring such.
Here is the abstract of an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics by Cristina Richie, Theology Department, Boston College, which argues that since every human “emits carbon” into the environment,
Evaluating the ethics of offering reproductive services against its overall harm to the environment makes unregulated ARTs unjustified….
“ART” stands for “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” It includes such things as fertilization in vitro and artificial insemination, as well as methods of having babies where the child might be born with AIDS, surrogate pregnancy, and more.
(WikiFootia has a good overview.)
From Ms. Richie’s article:
A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.
(I have had some non-biological “children,” but only in a figurative sense, such as patterns of words set down on paper or sent into cyberspace. But it seems to me that actual non-biological children are probably rather rare.)
Now ask me what I think. C’mon, you know you want to! *g* Well, lest the multitude of Kounting Kitties hereabouts get to yowling from the suspense….
Views in which “the environment” is seen as of higher moral value than human beings as such — whether conceived in delight or after a fight, or both, or neither — are perverse in the strongest and most serious sense of the word. (Compact OED, Print Ed., 1971, = 1933 OED plus addenda, gives various definitions, several of which boil down to “turning away from right to wrong.”) To me, the word has a connotation of DELIGHT in turning from right to wrong, and a deliberate inversion of right and wrong, so that the evil is embraced as good and the good, as evil.
All I can say is, I place a very high value on my own personal Carbon Legacy, who in early middle age continues to provide joy, light, and warmth to my life. Besides, this person grows houseplants and, in summer, tomatoes and peppers, so I figure that offsets the inevitable “emission of carbon.” (Whatever does Ms. Richie think that means? There’s a huge variety of carbon-containing molecules that are “emitted” by a huge variety of sources, most of them “natural.”) Personally I think that once we’ve gotten fluorine out of the way by banning it (per a suggestion by some doofus over here), we should simply ban carbon. That would solve everything. At least from the human point of view, which would no longer exist.
. . .
I will let Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of LifeNews.com, have the last word. He has a piece on this entitled “Population Controllers Call Babies ‘Carbon Legacies,’ a Threat to the Environment.” Per Mr. Smith:
And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little carbon legacies to come onto me’….
“Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
There is a reason that “Lady Justice” wears a blindfold, it is so that both prejudice and favour are ignored in the legal system and one of the reasons why the Anglo-Saxon legal system has established itself around the world.
Unfortunately, the same rules do not apply to the politically correct who see a “narrative” at every turn, indeed is a “Social Worker” not the very epitome of the Fabian state writ large?
The net effect of such deliberate and wilful ignorance was that a significant number of children were subjected to violence, sexual abuse and coercion because the public appointed and empowered enforcers of the law were colour-blind to their actions because they were Muslims.
Without committing acts of outrage myself, it is impossible to continue, but suffice to say that until political correctness and random acts of racism are removed from both law and public service – for what else is “Child Services” – or whatever the current politically correct euphemism?
There may well be a place for social workers, but it is within the voluntary sector of the 19th century rather than the state enabled child abductors of the 21st.
The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.
Not a Sam Harris fan, as I dislike and mistrust militant atheists just as much as other militantly religious or anti-religious folk. Particularly when they seem to believe it’s they themselves to whom the phrase “from God’s mouth to your ear” applies.
But this piece by Mr. Harris is an op-ed that by me deserves great praise, particularly as it probably offends most of his natural audience. (Of course, I don’t agree with every word, nor every implication.) And I know why he put in all those parentheticals: It’s to try and cut off at the pass the obvious accusations with which we’re all too familiar.
Audio at source, from which the following are excerpts. The whole is a fair bit longer, and of course better integrated.
July 27, 2014
AUDIO TRANSCRIPT [Note: This is a verbatim transcript of a spoken podcast. However, I have added notes like this one to clarify controversial points.—SH]
The question I’ve now received in many forms goes something like this: Why is it that you never criticize Israel? Why is it that you never criticize Judaism? Why is it that you always take the side of the Israelis over that of the Palestinians?
I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. … I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims. I’ve debated rabbis who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers, they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God who can hear prayers?” So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him—and therefore, nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity.
I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read this paragraph again.]
Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state.
[Note: It is worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish” in the sense that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.” As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. ....]
More civilians have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and other noncombatants killed. ….
Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]
It is clear that Israel is losing the PR war and has been for years now. One of the most galling things for outside observers about the current war in Gaza is the disproportionate loss of life on the Palestinian side. This doesn’t make a lot of moral sense. Israel built bomb shelters to protect its citizens. The Palestinians built tunnels through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis. Should Israel be blamed for successfully protecting its population in a defensive war? I don’t think so.
there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. … [Note: Yes, I know that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do to have brought them to power. Hamas is not a fringe group.]
The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.
And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.
The truth is that everything you need to know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies can be understood on the topic of human shields. Who uses human shields? Well, Hamas certainly does.
Consider the moral difference between using human shields and being deterred by them. That is the difference we’re talking about. The Israelis and other Western powers are deterred, however imperfectly, by the Muslim use of human shields in these conflicts, as we should be. It is morally abhorrent to kill noncombatants if you can avoid it. It’s certainly abhorrent to shoot through the bodies of children to get at your adversary. But take a moment to reflect on how contemptible this behavior is. And understand how cynical it is. The Muslims are acting on the assumption—the knowledge, in fact—that the infidels with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields.
There are reports that Israeli soldiers have occasionally put Palestinian civilians in front of them as they’ve advanced into dangerous areas. That’s not the use of human shields we’re talking about. It’s egregious behavior. No doubt it constitutes a war crime. But Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit.
If you’re going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.
The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.