What do they have in common?
Go here to find out.
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
What do they have in common?
Go here to find out.
David Horowitz was a red-diaper baby who gave all he had to the New Left as it developed in the late ’50′s and the ’60′s. It took him a long, very painful time, during which he forwent politics in favor of writing non-political biographies, to see that the Left’s avowed goals could not be met by any method, and finally, in 1984 (IIRC), he pulled the lever for Ronald Reagan.
Since then he has gone back to being a highly energetic political activist, but this time trying to educate people as to the importance of individualism and conservatism, and as to the danger of “radical Islam.” This includes the founding of FrontPageMag.com, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the site Discoverthenetworks.com, where articles detail the links among a wide variety of leftist institutions and persons; as well as much writing and the giving of many speeches on leftism and on Islamicism.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the fascinating subject article, published at FrontPageMag.
. . .
Carl Bernstein’s Communist Problem and Mine
July 31, 2012 By David Horowitz
…. I thought it might be useful to those first being introduced to what I like to call the “neo-communist left” to read a piece I wrote a few years ago about Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein and his Communist father…. It is particularly the disloyalty and fundamental dishonesty of these people, these Communist progressives which I think should most interest readers in the context of the political and economic crises we are facing today. – David Horowitz.
. . .
Al Bernstein, the father of Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, had been a member of the Communist Party and a secret agent in the same way that Ann and my parents were secret agents. Like them, Al Bernstein is one of those progressives who left the Party but could never leave its political faith. When Carl Bernstein approached his father about a book he intended to write on “the witch-hunts leading up to the McCarthy era,” Al Bernstein stonewalled him, refusing to be interviewed, even though it was his own son. He did not approve his son’s proposed quest for the truth about his Communist past. He did not want his son to discover the truth about his experience in the Communist Party or about the Party’s role in American life.
[. . .]
The headline speaks for itself. –Speaking of Leaking, Var. Newspaperiensis, did you-all know Mr. Bernstein (of Watergate, Woodward-&-Bernstein fame) was also a red-diaper baby?
Apparently Jezza and Piers have been feuding for 13 years.
Battle of the big-heads: Fisticuffs. Hissy fits. For 13 years, Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan have waged a hilariously juvenile feud… and now it’s hit new depths
I would question the use of hilarious here for they are both epic bell-ends. As you can imagine it isn’t Oscar Wilde and James Whistler.
Apparently… Piers Morgan calls Jeremy Clarkson a ‘muscle-depleted Chihuahua’.
Ohh… man-bags at the ready. The only thing that needs to be depleted here is the uranium in the shells from the A-10 used to turn them into force-meat. Or how about this…
Round four: October 2003
The supersonic passenger jet Concorde makes its final scheduled flight for British Airways from New York to London. Among the celebrities onboard are, yes, Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson.
Despite the fact that Clarkson has told other passengers that Morgan ‘is a little ****’ and he’s going to ‘punch his lights out,’ BA put Clarkson in the seat directly in front of Morgan. As Clarkson takes his seat he says, ‘Oh, ******* hell, I’ve got a **** behind me.’
‘And I’ve got one in front of me, too,’ Morgan replies. Further potty-mouthed badinage ensues and Morgan taunts Clarkson: ‘Come on big man, show me what you’ve got.’
Clarkson then tips a glass of water over Morgan, much to the amusement of fellow passengers, including Joan Collins and Jodie Kidd.
Later Clarkson calls Morgan while the latter is chauffeured back from Heathrow. ‘This is all getting very silly. Let’s put it behind us. Please,’ he says. But is the feud put behind them? Not for long.
I have seen such “hilarious” antics before on a flight. It was a budget airline from Prague to Manchester. Some lads in front of me decided to be generally obnoxious and ultimately staged a farting contest in a row just ahead of me and my wife. They were “telt” by the Flight attendants in no uncertain terms to pipe down or there would be a taxi with flashing blue lights to greet them at Ringway. They shut it because they were “proles” so bad behaviour isn’t “hilarious” unlike with “celebs” like Jezz and Piers. The Flight Attendents looked more like nightclub bouncers than “trolly dollies”.
Round five: March 2004
Morgan and Clarkson both attend the British Press Awards. A thoroughly refreshed Clarkson makes his way to the table where Morgan, who has just begun his TV career alongside editing the Daily Mirror, is sitting.
‘Now that you’re in my world of telly, I can tell you you’re ****,’ the Top Gear star remarks.
A heated conversation ensues, in which Morgan sees Frances Clarkson, staring daggers at him from her table. ‘Why does your wife always blame me for everything you do?’ he asks.
Clarkson is outraged. He swings a right hook at Morgan, followed by more blows, hitting Morgan’s temple and forehead.
The following day, Morgan tells reporters: ‘He then tried to headbutt me — missing my nose by about an inch. I think it’s fair to say he was a little inebriated. I’ve frankly taken worse batterings from my three-year-old son.’
Clarkson admits: ‘He’s won really. This is just one in a long line of clashes. We’ll have to kiss and make up.’
And there is much more “antics” between these two.
Apart from the simple fact they fight like girls if you or me had done this we’d have another appointment with the paddy wagon Indeed if you or me had done this we’d be accused in The Mail of “The sort of yobbery that is typical of ‘Broken Britain’” and not of “hilarious” japery.
For the record I used to find Clarkson May and that little fella’s antics amusing but he’s just become a pathetic self-parody of himself who has jumped more sharks than an Orlando water-park does in a season. I mean how many ways can the Top Gear lads wreck a caravan – again. Morgan is though just a total and utterly irredeemably unmitigated cunt of the very first water.
But when two such “characters” go to war you don’t pray for a victory, you pray for a bipartisan dual smiting in the Biblical sense.
And you also wonder at the Mail thinking this light-hearted hi-jinks. I suppose because neither are Rommanians coming over here to get a job in Burger King.
The Daily Mail are deranged gits as well. The great myth of many that immigrants are a “burden” perplexes me but that’s for another post. I’d much rather have a Bulgarian nurse and a Romanian waitress over here than Jezza and Piers. I doubt though Sofia or Bucharest would play swapsies. I wouldn’t.
The Daily Wail is up in sanctimonious arms about a “notorious internet troll” they have exposed. Why is the Wail’s blood up? Because uncompromising blogger Old Holborn verbally slaughtered a couple of sacred cows that no one dare tell bad taste jokes about. And it caused the twatterati to descend into a frenzied virtual lynch party.
This is the face of one of Britain’s most notorious internet trolls.
As his alter ego Old Holborn, Robert Ambridge is responsible for a series of vile and offensive Twitter posts that have brought him death threats.
Apparently death threats are not as vile and offensive as taking the micturation out of a taboo subject.
Thousands were outraged when Ambridge, who appears on his Twitter page with his identity disguised by a plastic pig mask, tweeted about the Hillsborough Stadium disaster. He posted a picture of two overweight women and claimed ‘this is what crushed the 96’.
Whereas the millions who have never heard of OH and are too busy having a life to tweet probably couldn’t give a stuff.
Moral outrage. The most persistent bane of our post normal society. A dangerous threat to free speech. Is OH offensive? I’d say yes, having read his blog on and off over the years. Sometimes I agree with what he says and on other occasions I think he’s a git. I wouldn’t issue a death threat to shut him up though no matter how offensive his remarks. Nor would I be insisting that “something must be done” to silence him. If he wants to be a git making gittish remarks designed to annoy authoritarian gits then that’s his prerogative.
Ambridge, 51, a recruitment consultant and father of six from Braintree, Essex, also made disgusting comments about the murder of James Bulger which deeply upset his mother. But an unrepentant Ambridge claims people who are offended by his comments have only themselves to blame.
Yes, being offended on the behalf of someone you’ve never met has become a full time sport for the perpetually affronted brigade. My reaction? OH is being a controversial git gleefully poking what he knows is going to be a hornets nest to provoke a reaction. The adult thing to do, if you are offended by him, is ignore him, not give him the oxygen of publicity. But it seems we are not dealing with adults and that includes the journalists and the police.
‘It is not my responsibility what other people find upsetting. I didn’t target anyone. I didn’t send an email. They chose to read what I wrote. If they don’t like it, they should turn it off. I don’t care what people find offensive.’
Because making crass remarks might be offensive to those prone to outrageous bouts of herd apoplexy but it is not an offence in law. It certainly isn’t a hound ‘em and flog ‘em out of gainful employment offence. Oh wait, yes it is. People have the right not to be offended. By anyone or anything. Anywhere or at any time. And the authorities will be there to mollycoddle wounded feelings and take names. All in the name of social inclusivity and clamping down on naughtiness to make the world a better place for everyone who is happy being a touchy-feely herdthink drone.
Justifying his tweet about Hillsborough, he added: ‘This is dark humour. People might not like my humour but I think it is funny and it gets a chuckle.’
So where is all the outrage about taking the mickey out of fat people? Don’t they deserve to be treated with sensitivity? Well no, because it is socially acceptable to believe that all fat people are greedy and stupid and deserve all the derision they get even when they don’t. Unlike Merseyside’s tragically deceased they aren’t a protected species when it comes to verbal abuse or offensive jokes. Either everyone is a target or none at all. I’ll settle for everyone because none at all is a tyranny.
This week, the self-proclaimed ‘satirical terrorist’ will seek to justify his vitriolic internet posts in an ITV documentary called Fear And Loathing Online.
Well yes, OH can be quite loathsome when he puts his mind to it. However the only fear in this particular Wail story comes from the death threats of the morally outraged. OH hasn’t actually threatened anyone, merely piddled them off. Not the same thing. So how come he’s the only pariah in town right now? Have the thousands of column inches dedicated to our not bombing Assad being wrong, wrong wrong, finally run out of steam?
Ambridge agreed to be filmed without his pig mask, although his face was not shown. But The Mail on Sunday traced Ambridge to his dilapidated Victorian home in Braintree.
Matthew Hopkins journalism at its most odious. I’ll assume that howling mobs, pitchforks and flaming torches were optional extras not available on expenses.
With an appearance more akin to Coronation Street’s hapless cafe owner Roy Cropper than a cutting-edge satirist, he initially denied he was Old Holborn.
So what is a “cutting-edge satirist” supposed to look like? And who wrote the benchmark specifications for the physical appearance of one? Fatuous journalism at its most infantile.
But later, speaking at the wheel of his battered Toyota vehicle, gap-toothed Ambridge said: ‘I am there to upset the apple cart. It is a form of entertainment. Trolling is like putting a fishing line in a shoal of fish and seeing what you can get.’
I can see a pattern building here. It’s not just OH’s opinions that are low rent. His dilapidated house, battered Toyota and crooked teeth are proof that the Wail is dealing with a lowlife scumbag who needs to be put in his place – six feet under if the Twatter mob get’s its way. He hasn’t broken the law. The fact that he’s overweight, white and middle aged isn’t a criminal offense although the Wail is trying to build a case on those shifting sands of stupidity. He has six children. So what? I am led to believe he has worked hard to bring them up instead of relying on the state to do it. That isn’t a crime either.
Ambridge worked for Alchemy Recruitment in Braintree until April, when he was first outed as a notorious online troll. Following his Hillsborough comments, people bombarded the firm with phone calls and threatened to burn down its offices.
OH is a blogger who stirs the smelly stuff with a big spoon and then muses upon the fruits of the fall-out. He’s certainly not everyone’s cup of cha. Internet trolls lead the unsuspecting into an ambush which isn’t OH’s modus operandi at all. But then, given the inferior, poorly informed and lacking a shred of research dross that passes for journalism these days, I suppose the confusion is understandable. After all the newfangled blogging media has only been around for a decade and a half – give or take. Not enough time for the legacy media to catch up.
However, the ancient practice of witch-hunting is alive and well in the twenty-first century. Anyone associated with someone possessed of
free speech a penchant for controversy an aversion to political correctness the Devil’s evil forked tongue and tail is fair game and must be purged for the good of society. Don’t you just love this popular resurgence of a deeply unsavoury hysterical historical custom?
An investigation was launched by Essex Police over tweets relating to the Boston bombing, as well as the Hillsborough disaster and the Bulger murder. Ambridge has since left the company.
So are they going to investigate everyone who believes OH is entitled to his opinion no matter what sacred cow he’s tipped? Are they also going to investigate the death threat tweets and emails he and his former employer received? If not, why not? Or is it now legal and acceptable to put someone in fear of their life for upsetting the herd or because they employ someone who has?
Police said the CPS is considering whether to pursue a case of criminal communication through social media involving a 51-year-old man from Braintree.
Clearly there is a certain demographic that never found its way out of the infants playground. It is not the job of the police to nurse bruised sensitivities and pander to the chronically indignant. Their job is to investigate, arrest and charge actual criminals, not harass people who upset the mores of self-indulgent, social puritans. So OH caused offense with his crass and very black humour. So what. It’s not like he was caught red-handed molesting kiddies, drowning kittens or mugging old ladies for their bingo money.
I was disgusted by the people who happy-danced at a certain old lady’s funeral a few months back. But they were entitled to do that. I was content to mutter “gits” at the TV screen. I certainly wasn’t motivated to hunt them down and send them death threats on behalf of the bereaved family. Nor do I expect the police to “investigate” the matter as a possible “hate” crime. Yes there was hate. A lot of it. But was it a crime? Hardly.
* It seems the Wail doesn’t know the difference between a controversial, politically incorrect blogger and a troll, notorious or otherwise. Hence, Trogger.
“In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. Whilst the 20th century was dominated by a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomised rather than of their inherent strength.”
Dr Bill Durodié is an Associate Fellow of the International Security Programme (ISP) for Chatham House
The above quote is a brief excerpt from Adam Curtis‘ 2004 classic documentary “The Power of Nightmares“ on how black propaganda can create a fantasy of self-delusion which ultimately seduces the body-politic of its producer. This is a compelling interpretation of the history of the creation of Al Qaeda as a phantom enemy to fill the gap caused by the fall of the Soviet Union.
The US Networks have refused to show it, so while it may be familiar to our UK readers, it has probably not received the audience it deserves outside of the UK.
Regardless of whether you believe his interpretation is correct, it is an interesting analysis of the road to Baghdad.
To prevent Cats from accusations of copyright infringement, I will not post links, but I watched all three episodes this afternoon courtesy of Google.
Victor Davis Hanson, for those who have the misfortune to be located in the Provinces *g*, is a military and classical historian who is a highly-regarded columnist on current affairs here in the States.
Below are the major headings from his piece on the current vogue for and acceptability of lying as a way of life, with a sentence or two from the start of each. There are many more links throughout the piece, at the source:
Victor Davis Hanson:
Lying in the Age of Obama
July 23rd, 2013 – 12:02 am
A Nation of Liars
The attorney general of the United States lied recently to Congress. He said he knew of no citizen’s communications that his department had monitored. Lie!
But why pick on the president?
The media routinely peddles “noble” untruths. ABC manipulated a video to show George Zimmerman without much injury to his head.
It’s Not Really the Cover-up
Our current scandals are predicated on lies. No one believed the official White House version that the IRS miscreants were rogue agents from a Cincinnati field office.
Is There Anyone Left Who Doesn’t Lie?
Why do they lie? Because they can. Or to paraphrase Dirty Harry, they like it.
The Cover-up Pays
We repeat the nauseous canard that “it is not the crime, but the cover-up” that gets you in trouble in Washington. But that too is often a lie….
Why Do Our Best and Brightest Lie?
There are both age-old and more recent catalysts for lying.
One, lying and plagiarism are forms of narcissism.
So Why Not Lie?
I end with three reasons to tell the truth.
“We always lose,” says Chris at the end of the The Magnificent Seven after he did the right thing. Or to paraphrase the cinematic T.E. Lawrence about Auda Abu Tayi, we will not lie, as do our elites, because it is simply “our pleasure” not to.
“If you are presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group want to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect.”
The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
By Will Storr
7:00AM BST 29 May 2013
On a June afternoon in the middle of New York’s Times Square, Charlie Veitch took out his phone, turned on the camera and began recording a statement about the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.
“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths. If you are presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group want to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.”
To most people, it doesn’t sound like a particularly outrageous statement to make. In fact, the rest of the video was almost banal in its observations; that the destruction of the towers may actually have been caused by the two 767 passenger jets that flew into them. But to those who subscribed to Veitch’s YouTube channel, a channel he set up to promulgate conspiracy theories like the one he was now rejecting, it was tantamount to heresy. …
His friend showed him the online documentary “Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terror,” made by the American radio host Alex Jones. It parsed a new version of history, in which governments secretly organised terror attacks to spread fear and extend their matrices of control. From the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin up to the present day, it writhed with apparently unassailable facts and sources.
Jones is a brilliantly effective propagandist who recently made headlines for his hostile showdown on US television with Piers Morgan, over gun control. …
Veitch was now a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories.
In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. …
“I’ve gone full circle in my Right-wing thinking,” he says. “There’s a professional victimhood in conspiracy theorists. There’s a hatred of high achievers.”
As they say — Read the whole fascinating thing. Especially the last three paragraphs. Oh, and some of the comments are interesting too.
Charles Crawford, over at the Commentator – whose comments system, based on the Hell that is Disqus, sucks – fisks the incomprehensibly influential doofus Will Hutton on the horsemeat scandal. And totally misses the point. Hutton:
“As the horsemeat saga unfolds, it becomes more obvious by the day that those Thatcherite verities – that the market is unalloyed magic, that business must always be unshackled from “wealth-destroying” regulation, that the state must be shrunk, that the EU is a needless collectivist project from which Britain must urgently declare independence – are wrong.”
How’s that, Will? As Richard North has demonstrated in his usual obsessive style, Horsemeat entered the food chain because of fraud in the EU regulation system, a compulsory system that places excessive weight on paperwork while failing to sample any actual meat. Quite what the failure of an overbearing, hubristic, supranational regulatory bureaucracy has to do with Thatcherism is completely beyond me.
Other than proving it right, that is. The truth is, this scandal is actually extremely instructive in showing almost the exact opposite of Hutton’s gleeful conclusion: that EU regulatory structures, which replaced our own local authority testing of which North was once a part, can cost a bloody fortune, get in the way of efficient trade, and still utterly fail to protect the public in any meaningful sense at all. There are plenty of regulations, and keen, enthusiastic, inspectors to enforce them; they just don’t work. As long as the Papers are in order, and the factories are ticking all the right Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points boxes, all is well. Until some unanalyzed hazard emerges at an uncritical, uncontrolled, point, such as a crook who doesn’t give a damn about HACCP switching the labels. Guys like North would have known who to suspect – the dirty premises, the slapdash staff, the shifty management – and left the honest ones relatively, well… shall we say “unshackled”? The alphabet soup of FSA/DEFRA/EU bureaucrats, who are too high and mighty to get their hands dirty on the slaughterhouse floor, don’t have a Scooby Doo. All their papers check out. Someone must have been – gasp! – lying.
So we have frantic, minute, obsessive – expensive – regulation, to absolutely no useful end whatsoever. Oh, yes: this costs money, and does destroy wealth. That’s why we now have a tiny number of “super-abbatoirs”, instead of a thriving industry of local ones. It’s the only way the meat business can afford the regulation. Hardly the the free market running riot, is it? And it’s a damning example of the uselessness of Will’s beloved EU. Indeed, as North points out, this is only beginning to be sorted out by the EU states organising their own investigations outside the Union’s institutions.
Crawford never touches on this, preferring to score cheap points by bringing up the Staffordshire NHS killings. But then, his opening statement (“Sooner or later anyone that prolific must drift from wisdom towards self-parody”) suggests that he thinks Hutton demonstrated any wisdom in the first place, which casts severe doubt on his judgement.
Update: Thanks to Your Freedom and Ours, here is what Hutton thinks doesn’t exist: “Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety”. This is particularly interesting:
Before 1 January 2005 and every six years thereafter, the Authority, in collaboration with the Commission, shall commission an independent external evaluation of its achievements on the basis of the terms of reference issued by the Management Board in agreement with the Commission. The evaluation will assess the working practices and the impact of the Authority. The evaluation will take into account the views of the stakeholders, at both Community and national level.
“Stakeholders”, eh? I don’t know if Hutton actually coined this slippery word, but he did much to popularize it, and it appears again in the article Crawford attempted to fisk. So much for the Powers That Be ignoring his ideas and going off on a neo-liberal spree of their own….
The circulation figure for the lefty rag, New Statesman, fell over the edge of a cliff some time ago and is still plummeting. Hardly surprising, if this is the standard of journalism.
Martha Gill writes an online column she calls Irrational Animals. Her latest outpouring is entitled, Why “family men” make terrible bosses. It’s possible Ms Gill has a reason for the scare quotes. It’s also possible that it is nothing more than an annoying and pointless affectation.
There is a photo of iDave, his wife and youngest child with a caption reading, Do we like David Cameron more because he has children? Obviously the link here is that Cameron is a family man who also happens to be Tory Prime Minister. Ed Miliband is also a parent but obviously he’s not the type of parent Ms Gill wants to smear write about.
If you’re trying to become the leader of a political party or a chief executive, it might be a good idea to have some kids – especially if you’re a man. For some reason, we like having family men at the top: perhaps because we think they’re more relatable; perhaps because we think they’re kinder or more empathetic.
Who is this “we” she’s talking about? Is it the apocryphal “we” shonky journos use to prove yet another interminable non-point? The crude and ramshackle device that masquerades as consensus but is nothing more than wishful thinking tarted up like a dog’s dinner? Yes it is!
Political leaders, in particular, often introduce policy measures that affect children with a brief mention of their own kids (just to show parents that they’re on the same page) – or simply mention them apropos of nothing.
Gosh, political leaders with a family behave just like ordinary parents do. Who knew?
“My children have onesies and I often say I’m very jealous,” Cameron announced last week, just to make sure, one last time, that we all know he’s a dad.
Yes, God forefend that Cameron should talk fondly about his brood. It’s unnatural! It shouldn’t be allowed! Send for the Daddy Police!
The implication is that because a leader has children, he’ll care more about children in general. Anecdotally, at least, this seems not to be true. Before having children, people tend to have a benign (if not particularly invested) attitude towards other people’s kids. Have children of your own and these other kids become tiny competitors: less good at gym than your child but somehow in the gym team; inexplicably cast as Mary in the nativity play; undeservedly in a higher maths class; irritatingly better at the clarinet.
The implication is that Ms Gill could quite possibly be completely barking if she believes even half that guff. Cameron is a crap leader because he is incompetent, not because he is a doting dad. That goes double for Miliband and Clegg.
Although your image becomes fuzzier and warmer, your behaviour seems to go in the opposite direction. I have seen the genuinely empathetic suddenly start filling up their friends’ Facebook newsfeeds with 12 daily pictures of their newborns (all, surely, the same picture). I have seen the genuinely interesting and funny suddenly unable to talk about anything but nappy rash.
But has she seen or heard iDave do it when he’s Prime Ministering or whatever it is he thinks that entails? If the answer is no then what point is being made here? Anyone? Oh, wait. I forgot. This is a lefty rag so what I’m reading is anti-Tory spin, not informed opinion.
The problem is that having children completely shifts your priorities. It makes you more grasping (on their behalf) – which makes the warm and fuzzy image rather odd.
Call me blind but I don’t recall seeing any shift, significant or otherwise, in iDave’s political viewpoint when his daughter was born. Not even from the sad death of his son. If Ms Gill requires an example of how a politician shifts priorities for an offspring then she should look a little closer to home, to Diane Abbott. A more appropriate example to illustrate this lefty wibble I can’t think of.
A recent study by the Aalborg University economics professor Michael Dahl showed that the first thing male CEOs do when they have their first child is to give themselves a raise at the expense of everyone else in the company. The research was carried out on a large group of Danish chief executives and found that when they had a child, their pay went up by an average of 4.9 per cent. The rest of the company were paid about 0.2 per cent less.
So what’s he said that has got Ms Gill’s thong in a twist about political leaders and parenthood?
Motivated by a growing literature in the social sciences suggesting that the transition to fatherhood has a profound effect on men’s values, we study how the wages of employees change after a male chief executive officer (CEO) has children, using comprehensive panel data on the employees, CEOs, and families of CEOs in all but the smallest Danish firms between 1996 and 2006. We find that (a) a male CEO generally pays his employees less generously after fathering a child, (b) the birth of a daughter has a less negative influence on wages than does the birth of a son and has a positive influence if the daughter is the CEO’s first, and (c) the wages of female employees are less adversely affected than are those of male employees and positively affected by the CEO’s first child of either gender. We also find that male CEOs pay themselves more after fathering a child, especially after fathering a son. These results are consistent with a desire by the CEO to husband more resources for his family after fathering a child and the psychological priming of the CEO’s generosity after the birth of his first daughter and specifically toward women after the birth of his first child of either gender.
Errr…That’ll be sweet FA then. Dahl is writing about the behaviour of newly parented leaders of Danish industry and business. I don’t see anything about politicians there at all. So, WTF is Ms Gill banging on about?
If it’s a boy and a firstborn, male employees suffer particularly –wages going down by about 0.5 per cent. Interestingly, though, the effect is muted when the baby is a girl. Fathers of girls take a smaller pay rise (3 per cent) and give their female employees a tiny average raise.
Spontaneous physog/palm interface.
According to the researchers, the odd gender differences here are probably a mixture of straightforward competitiveness (with the men) and a raised awareness of the pay gap (which, though small, still exists in Denmark) that could now affect their daughters. They speculated that the results would be more exaggerated in the US but privacy laws made it too hard to get the right information.
Talk about losing the plot…
It’s an interesting study as it broaches the idea that caring about your children doesn’t necessarily translate into caring about anyone else. It might be time to give the childless a chance at promotion.
I don’t think so, Ms Gill. Who the Scammel wants another Edward Heath in Number Ten?
It is clear that Professor Dahl’s latest book bears absolutely no relevance to British politicians who are fathers. However, that hasn’t prevented Ms Gill from weilding it like a piece of Fabian two-by-four. I know that progressives believe that the State is both mother and father but attacking Cameron for being a parent is both snide and pathetic.
Clearly Ms Gill is an expert an irrational animals. She puts lipstick on one every morning.
The balance of power will be held by a political party headed by a television presenter (the son of a another media type) who has promised everything (education, health, housing) to everybody – and who is known (even to his actual supporters) as “Pretty Boy”.
Anyone want to explain how Representative Democracy is a good thing?
Thrust SSC was, at 4m wide and 10 tonnes – powered by twin Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan engines, more commonly found beneath the wings of an F-4 Phantom II jet aircraft – an unwieldy beast. Rather than simply tweak its design, Noble and Green opted to begin from scratch. A slimmer, lighter car could, they reckoned, significantly outstrip Thrust. But first they needed jets.
This is what an F-4 Phantom looks like:
Do you see any engines under the wings? Now obviously I knew this already but finding that (and many more) images took 5s with Google. And it’s not like it’s an obscure ‘plane so anyone writing on this sort of stuff ought to know anyway.
If I were editor of the DT I’d carpet Mr Ross for such sloppy idleness. Now I’m a fair man so I’d give him a start before I released the hounds and wouldn’t spray his genitals with aniseed first. I reserve that as a unique punishment.
The second is this gem of bollocks reporting and woo-woo headlining.
Look, you numpty, this is what the USA thought of doing… They were going to detonate a kT range-yield nuke (I hate the term “atomic bomb” which is used in the article) to show the Soviets that the USA could hit the Moon or even in principle weaponize it. Bear in mind this was the ’50s when serious popular science journals were considering the (stupid and unworkable) idea of missile batteries on the moon. Unworkable because it took an entire Saturn V rocket to get three men there and stupid because it took three days to get there (or back). Who wants to launch a nuclear strike giving the other side that much notice? Of course in those days small (and not so small) boys were reading action comics in which the USMC (Space Division) and the Spetznaz (Space Division) would be slugging it out (with ray-guns, natch) over Copernicus Crater.
It all goes back perhaps to Arthur C Clarke (and maybe John Wyndam) and the concept of orbital weapons. Again a militarily ridiculous concept if you think about it*. Ultimately technical, military and economic logic won though against SF dreams and the sub-orbital ballistic missile was born. Couple that with a nuclear powered submarine and you have a far more potent weapon at orders of magnitude less money. You think a Vanguard or Ohio class submarine is expensive? Compare with the cost of building nuclear silos on the Moon…
I guess it hit a popular Zeitgeist based, perhaps, on the feeling that we’d gone from the Wright brother’s stick and string to Sputnik in half a century and from lobbing hand-grenades from primitive biplanes to Little Boy in even less time.
“Everyday it’s a-gettin’ closer
Goin’ faster than a roller coaster”
Perhaps it’s also down to other little boys fantasizing about using their ray-guns to waste some tentacled horror and win the heart of the alien princess who might be green but that’s OK because she has unfeasibly large breasts (that’s Zero-G for you!). Seriously, the interaction between popular culture, fashion, trends in aerospace and governmental policy can’t be underestimated. Perhaps whoever wrote this Telegraph schlock was one of those little boys but of course this persisted long after the ’50s. Consider two films from about 1980. There was a sort of proto-”Deep Impact” movie (I forget the name) which featured pre-existing Soviet and US nukes being turned against an incoming meteor or some such and also of course “Moonraker” with the USMC in space-combat with Drax’s mob. Drax also has deadly weapons in space. Of course he does! And he wears a Mao suit.
Instead we had Apollo. You know they left medals commemorating lost cosmonauts as well as the astronauts who died in the Apollo oxygen fire?
Back to Earth! The wider problem I see with this hopelessly sloppy reporting on aerospace related issues by the dear old DT is that this is a subject I know a lot about. And it isn’t just the DT. They are all at it. The contempt the MSM scribblers show for basic fact checks and employing anyone competent** in the first place is staggering. And this is something I know about so I can chortle but what about the huge numbers of things I don’t really know about? That’s a worry. I don’t have the internal knowledge to appraise immediately nor the time to acquire it. They can’t sell me a load of pony on certain things but on others… And the same dear reader applies to you. None of us are polymaths anymore.
But as to the aerospace specifically, suspect deep-down it is a symptom of an ingrained belief amongst the “serious” papers (the ones without unfeasibly large breasts – more honest – you know where you are with a tit) that the really important stuff only happens between Whitehall and Wapping and getting actual facts – easy, non-controversial, non-debatable facts correct about all that nasty, complicated stuff with “like sums with letters in them” doesn’t really matter to their journalism trained minds. Something Michael Gove said is ever so much more important. No. It. Isn’t. When the Govester and his EBacc are mere footnotes in Hansard (some other wanker will be re-arranging the deckchairs by then anyway) studied only by the dullest of graduate students people will remember Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.
Well, that tech-stuff does matter and I’d much rather read something written by someone with no qualifications in journalism but an understanding of the area they are reporting on anyway. As I said, in many areas I don’t know what to think because I don’t trust what I read not just because it is propaganda or lies or deranged opinion but because I can’t accept the basic, verifiable, “truths” they use within the piece as real or otherwise because I know how sloppy they are on things I do know because I know they don’t even care to find out an F-4 Phantom has fuselage mounted engines rather than under-wing ones. I’ll leave the penultimate words to a quote from Bertrand Russell (I think this is about right),
I’d rather be reported by my worst enemy in philosophy than someone ignorant of it.
Without facts to argue from analysis and opinions are devoid of meaning. Without a respect for facts analysis and opinions range from doubtful to disingenuous to out-right “Noble Lies” (in the Platonic sense).
I want to know truth and not an unreality built upon a lack of genuine, objective facts. Every ignoring of reality (whether deliberate or through idleness or stupidity) contributes towards an “invented reality” so let’s ultimately hear from Jorge Luis Borges.
Ten years ago, any symmetrical system whatsoever which gave the appearance of order — dialectical materialism, anti-Semitism, Nazism—was enough to fascinate men. Why not fall under the spell of Tlön and submit to the minute and vast evidence of an ordered planet? Useless to reply that reality, too is ordered.
- Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
PS. I know this rambles. I’ve spent too long on it.
PPS. I know (see PS) this is posted after Levenson introduced (BBC – “His long-awaited enquiry results”. Not by me it wasn’t. I wasn’t calling for the DT to be taken to task by the “Regulators” (think Western movies) over these inexcusably bad pieces of journalism. No. I was calling for the likes of us to point out and laugh because, like a small boy who sees a potentate in the nip.
*Either geostationary over Moscow and DC or in predictable orbits or burning lots of fuel to vary orbit which would mean a very limited life-span or some form of space refueling.
**In the first article there is some wibbling about “Computational Fluid Dynamics”. Clearly the author hasn’t a clue what he is on about.
Yes I know this means that Governor Romney is doomed. My support tends to have that effect…
I also know that I have been attacking Mitt Romney for years.
However, the endorsements of Comrade Barack Obama by Mayor Health Fascist Bloomberg, and the vile Economist magazine, are just too much.
If they are on one side – I just have to be on the other side, saying a “plague on both their houses” will not do.
Since Comrade Barack Obama has been President of the United States of America unemployment has been above 8% of the workforce (a workforce that is smaller than it used to be – inspite of the working age population growing, work that one out) – now (a few weeks before the election) the Federal government declares that unemployment is below 8%.
And the “mainstream media” report it as fact (and with straight faces).
Of course in Chicago (one of the most corrupt cities in the United States – and where Barack Obama learned his trade) they used to even try and rig the murder numbers. The old tradition was to declare that people (who had died of gunshot wounds) had died of “heart failure”, thus keeping the murder rate down.
Now the United States is subjected to the “Chicago Way” – and the media of the Western world just wink at obvious fraud.
The West is dying – and one of the things it is dying of is corruption.
A post on an often overlooked year – 1986. A year in which events occured that had (and are having) terrible consequences.
A British person when hearing of the date “1986″ will think (if they think of anything) of the “Single European Act” – formally it came into effect in 1987, but the agreement was made in 1986. Mrs Thatcher was told that the agreement with the European Economic Community (as some still called it at the time) would lead to free trade, an open market, and was, therefore a good thing for a free market person to agree to.
Of course Mrs Thatcher’s information came from officials – note to all politcians, the moment you start to rely on official information (and interpretations) you are lost. For you are no longer really in power – the officials are.
This is not hidesight – I remember as a university undergraduate knowing what the Single European Act was really about, and my friends all knew as well. We all knew that it meant that the EEC (EC – now EU) would be able to impose any regulation it liked in vast areas of life (the British veto having gone – in these areas) and under vague words like “health” the Euros would be able to crush liberty in this land. The later works of such people Christopher Booker and Richard North just confirmed what we expected to happen. Lord Denning (and many others) had predicted the crushing of Common Law principles by Euro edicts (of course happily extended by British officials – overjoyed to have all restraints on their power destroyed by the Single European Act) at the time.
It was not an open market – it was a “single market” (a very different thing). In an open market customers decide what they want to buy – in a single market officials decide what customers should buy.
However, other terrible things happened in the year 1986.
The other great evil to hit Britain in 1986 was the “Big Bang” in the City of the London – the financial centre.
“But that was deregulation Paul” – it was deregulation, if by “deregulation” you mean government intervention ripping up the rules of private clubs and subtituting its own rules – a government definition of a “free market” defined not by what people had actually evolved over time (by voluntary interaction), but by following the “perfect competition” model from neoclassical economics text books.
There is some evidence that even the people who originally thought up the perfect competition conception only thought of it as theorectical tool (not as a picture of how the world was – or should be), and certainly the Austrian School of economics disputes the concept from start to finish – but the government went ahead anyway. It knew what a market “should” be – and if the people who actually built the markets thought differently, they must be wrong.
Remember although the London stock exchange was created in 1801, there was no law preventing anyone setting up a rival stock market (not before 1986 anyway). And also no law preventing people buying and selling shares “off exchange”. So the City of London (with all its guild like “restrictive practices”) was actually a voluntary institution. In fact a series of private clubs – covering the selling stocks and shares, insurance, commodities (and so on).
What had “deregulation” actually brought? The end of the great partnerships that created the City (the investment banks) – the partners sold up and ran away (not exactly a vote of confidence in the new order – from people some of whom had been in the City for generations). And the self employed stock brokers (who bought shares for the public) and stock jobbers (who sold shares for companies) were replaced by enterprises that did both (no conflict of interest there) and whose employees tended to have no lasting relationship with clients (they see them as cash cows – no more). And, of course, thousands of pages of government regulations (Financial Services Acts – and agencies to enforce them) with endless box ticking.
Somehow this not really seem like “deregulation” to me – in fact I think it will be the death of the City of London. But only time will tell.
Turning to the United States….
An American will say “1986 is that the year the Republicans lost control of the United States Senate?” – yes it was, but I am not concerned with party politics here. I am concerned with policy.
In 1986 an amnesty Act was passed by the Congress (including the Republican Senate) and signed into law by President Reagan. It was not descibed as an amnesty Act of course – the people who voted for it (and Reagan when he signed it) thought they were “controlling immigration” from this point onwards – and (to start from a clean slate) people who had been in the country a long time (and were nice and good – and had puppy dogs with big eyes) would no longer fear being dragged from their homes by evil jack booted thugs from the government. After all this was how officials (and the media – following academia) explained everything to the politicians, just as they had during the 1965 immigration law debate – which first messed up American immigration law.
“But what is wrong with this Paul – free migration, sounds very libertarian”. So it might be – had the Supreme Court (5-4 some years before 1986) not ruled that government (local, State and Federal) had to give “free” (i.e. paid for by taxpayers) education and other benefits to illegal immigrants – otherwise it was “discriminating” against them.
And the few nice illegals (the ones with the puppy dogs with big eyes – the people who love America dearly and do not wave the Mexican flag and pray for the destruction of the United States, not even slightly) who got amnesty? There turned out to be three million of them and (of course) many more millions of illegals followed them into the United States, believeing that they would eventually also get amnesty. As Comrade Barack is doing by Executive Order right now, after all the illegals vote for him even though they are not citizens, thanks to the “Motor Voter” (a driving license is enough to vote) Act he supported as a Senator.
“We should try to win their support Paul” – a person (regardless of ethnic background) who loves the United States can enter legally right now (join the military – serve your term, and you have citizenship). Yes the American immigration system is a mess (and has been since at least 1965 – the Teddy Kennedy Act), but 1986 made it worse – and made it farcical. Someone who believes the United States unjustly took land from Mexico in 1848 (ignoring the fact that the Mexican government, a military dictatorship, also wanted war – and had its own expansionist plans) are not likely to vote for people who do not hate the United States. Odd that they are so eager to vote for Barack Obama – of course not odd at all. But have “free migration” as long as there are no government benefits (“free” education for the children and so on) – except, oh dear, there is that Supreme Court judgement (see above) of some 30 years ago.
Lastly there is the another major Act of Congress from 1986 – one that may help to destroy civilisation, and not just in the United States.
Again neither the people in Congress or President Reagan understood what they were supporting (the officials, media, and academia – advised them again). They thought they were supporting an Act that prevented evil hospitals throwing women on to the street in the middle of giving birth (seriously – that is how the Act was presented to them, after all it is so wonderful for the reputation of a hospital to throw a women who is the middle of giving birth on to the street, they were doing it all the time……).
What did the Act really do?
It made “emergency” treatment (without proof of payment) compulsory at all private hospitals with an ER (formally a hospital was not covered by the Act if it in no way had anything to do with government schemes – in the age of Medicare try and avoid any involvement with government schemes…..).
Wonderful – free treatment for the poor (indeed for anyone – one might try and chase them up afterwards, but about half of them never pay so what is the point….). Accept someone has to pay to pay for all this “free” treatment – so the bill (as with all government mandates) got passed on to the people who were paying their bills. The people who had carried on with private insurance in spite of the previous government interventions – such as Medicare and Medicaid (which has the same effect on health cover costs as government backing for student loans had on college tuition fees – they sent costs into the upper atmosphere) and the endless regulations (insurance mandates and so on) that have so increased costs. No surprise – insurance bills (that now carry all the “free” treatment) have exploded since 1986.
American government (State and Federal) interventions have been pushing up the cost of healthcare since doctor licensing spread from State to State like a plague (that this is about “protecting the sick” was exposed as a lie by Milton Friedman – more than half a century ago, it really has the same purpose as lawyer licensing, to increase producer incomes by keeping people out of the market) and the FDA (this agency was made even worse in 1962 – turning the development of new medical drugs incredibly expensive and delaying their introduction for years, thus costing tens of thousands of human lives). However, it was the Act of 1986 that really sent American health cover into a death spiral – that pushed the costs of insurance (for the old mutual aid “fraternal” system had long been undermined) beyond the reach of ordinary people.
Most people still oppose “Obamacare” (which will complete the destruction of independent health care in the United States – replaceing it with crony capitalist “private providers” who will depend upon the government – till the government decides to get rid of the crony capitalists, as it already has with the providers of government backed student loans), but the majority of people that are opposed was not a big enough majority to stop it (let alone repeal it). After all everyone agrees that “something must be done” and the “something” is always even more collectivism – “free” health care for all “children” up to the age of 26 (SCHIP on steroids – but paid for by the insurance companies, i.e. by their customers) no “denial” (i.e. honest priceing) of medical cover for “pre exiting conditions” and on and on – the honest insurance companies (oh yes there are some) will be bankrupted over time, and only the cronies (those in bed with the government – hoping to become “private providers” for government funded health cover) will remain. Already more and more employers are dropping health insurance for their employees – as they have worked out that the fines will be cheaper than paying the inflated (inflated by Obamacare regulations) costs of medical insurance.
Does anyone really believe that Mitt “Romneycare” Romney is going to be willing or able to repeal all this?
So American health care will fall – and more than this will fall. For this entitlement program is added to all the existing entitlements – the ones that are already bankrupting the United States.
So the United States will go into de facto bankruptcy. And it will not fall alone – most other major Western nations stand on the knife edge of economic collapse already. The fall of the United States will drag us over the cliff with it.
So, overall, 1986 was not a good year. It may even lead to the “Progressive” dream (of Richard Ely, mentor of “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, more than a century ago) of the desruction of “selfish capitalism”. For the history of the last century (including 1986) has not been an accident – and nor has it been some hole-in-the-wall “conspiracy”. On the contrary it has been out in the open – for those who bothered to look.
The Progressives were open in their aims – and even in their means. They openly said in their books (the century old books that, for example, Glenn Beck tried to bring to public attention) that they would use schools, universities and the newspapers to fundementally transform society – by manipulating opinion (both public and political elite opinion). Truth does not matter to the Progressives (it has never mattered to them) only their cause matters – and they will use any lie and distortion to further their cause – the cause of the destruction of existing society, of “selfish capitalism”. The Fabians in Britain had much the same aims – and used much the same methods. Including the desire to dominate education – not just at university level, but at school level (via text books and “teacher training” – step forward Comrade Bill Ayers and “social justice” education).
The books are more subtle today – such books as “Looking Backward”, “Philip Dru: Administrator” and “New Deal” (oh yes there was such a book) were a lot more blatent in their love of tyranny and hatred of freedom (sorry hated of selfish capitalism) than “Freakonomics”, “Nudge” and “Thinking – Fast and Slow”, but they have the same message. The message is as follows …. most people are vermin (“Homer Simpson” types) they are bound to be maniputed by someone (most likely by greedy capitalists) so why should not the noble we (the enlightened elite) manipulate them – for their own good. “Thinking Fast and Slow” is the most fundemental of the lot – it openly denies that people (apart from, nudge and wink, the noble author and his noble readers) are human beings, they do not really think (they do not really have free will) so someone must control them – for their own good……. Yes it is “So You Think That You Think” the fictional collectivist book (aimed at making people accept that they are vermin – fit only to be controlled by an enlightened elite) that Ayn Rand makes up in her novel “Atlas Shrugged” back in the 1950s (the collectivists never really change – and their “science” is actually as old as Plato).
“But Paul – how do you know the authors of Freakonmics and Nudge share the idealogy of the author of Thinking – Fast and Slow?” Errr – the praise they give the latter work (on its front and back cover – and when interviewed) is a little hint. I did tell you that this was not a hole-in-the-wall conspiracy – it is quite open, if you look. What more do you want – for the evil elite to have glowing red eyes and tenticles? Sorry, but they look like ordinary folk – and have gentle voices full of charming wit (whereas their enemies, people like me, sound like old storm crows).
The Progressives may not share the doctrines of the Marxists (although modern Frankfurt School “cultural” Marxists do not seem to make a big thing of the actual doctrines of Karl Marx either) – but they share their aim (the destruction of selfish capitalism). Ditto the alliance with the Black Flag people (the so called “anarchists” who happily cooperate with the Red Flag Marxists in such things as the international “Occupy” movement and the unions the collectivists control, for you see the Black Flag “anarchists” do not really oppose collectivism, they just want to rename the state “the people” and then get on with the looting and killing) – the Progressives may (privately) sneer and their uncouth allies – but leading Progressives (such as Mr George Soros and the other rich people who fund such things as the “Tides Foundation”) still fund them. And Progressive teachers and college Profs understand that both the Red Flag Marxists and the Black Flag “anarchists” are allies – allies against “selfish capitalism”, the old world they must destroy in order to build their perfect world.
Of course I am a reactionary – I do not believe that the interventions (the ever higher government spending and ever greater regulations) make the world a better place. And many of the Progressives do not believe that either – they believe (along with the Marxists who follow the “Cloward and Piven” doctrine and others) that the ever greater statism will destroy the present world – and, thus, (in their minds) leave things open for the building of the perfect world.
The “Fabian Window” (perhaps the most blatent example of evil turned into a work of art – and the Fabians were natural allies of the Progressives) makes this clear – wolves in sheep’s clothing, trickery and lies (openly praised), the world held over a fire and beaten with hammers (in order to create a better world – regardless of the human cost). George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells openly talked of the tens of millions of human beings they wished to kill (not because they hated them “I do not hate anyone” said Shaw), but simply because they were in the way – in the way of creating the perfect world (the Heaven on Earth). And these evil people remain “liberal” heros to this day – ever seen a television show or a Hollywood film where they are shown as “bad guys”?. And, of course, they went on to support the Soviet Union – with Mr and Mrs Webb pretending that tens of millions of people were not being murdered (remember lying is O.K. if it is for the Progressive cause). Mrs Webb had some doubts, over the mass killings in Poland when the Soviets invaded in 1939 – you know when they were the allies of Adolf Hitler, but Mr Webb simply told her that “in a century no one will even remember this”. All was justified to build the “New Civilisation”.
And the American Progressives were the same. With Hollywood personalities busy doing such things as justifying the Soviet invasion of Finland – “I have been there and it seemed a little Fascist Republic to me” said Lillian Hellman (wife of Dashiell Hammett [1929 "Red Harvest" evil capitalist America "Poisonville"] – together they made the prototype “celeb” Progressive power couple, both in Hollywood and in literary circles). One could always tell when Hellman was lying – her lips moved, not only was Finland not Fascist but Hellman had not been there.
One could go on and on – and people may already be bored (although in 1986 – and 2012 the Progressive celebs are just as powerful in cultural circles). And there is the standard defence (made by “anti McCarthyites”, even though Joe was actually interested in Communist agents of influence in the government not in the culture, since the 1940s) “they are not Marxists”. And they may not be – they may not have read a page of “Das Kapital” . The “Progressives” just share the objectives of the Marxists – the extermination of the existing society of “selfish capitalism” (and anyone who defends it – rich or poor “henchman of the capitalists”), and the building of the wonderful new perfect world.
However, I am such a reactionary that I not only believe that that their interventionism (their ever higher government spending and ever more regulations) makes the world worse (not better) than it otherwise would be - I also believe that their wonderful new perfect world (the one they dream of creating on the ashes of the existing world) would be Hell on Earth.