Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

They’re Making it up!

Quids…

The Daily Fail just has to say this. OK, it’s bimetallic but that is it. It doesn’t really look like the Euro. More to the point if we are introducing a new coin design does that not imply a commitment to Sterling? I don’t want the Euro. Guess why? Euro notes are OK. Euro Coins are very difficult to distinguish and God alone knows what they make ‘em from but after a couple of years they look tatty as Hell. Look, I can get myself around say US coinage, or Czech or Polish or British but Euros don’t float my boat. OK, so like the Euro coin it’s bimetallic but so is the GBP2 coin which I rather like. “Standing on the shoulders of giants” and all that caper. But dear me! The Euro cents I handled in Amsterdam recently just looked rough – like they came from one of those toy tills. They looked like they had been through a Belgian. Or an Alsation. Something of that kidney. They all look the bloody same yet different. Having different national images is a pain because whereas we have instantly identifiable symbols whereas having a variety of national symbols on the reverse you don’t bloody know – I mean you know if it is German* or French but it isn’t obvious if it is 10c or 20c. It identifies where the coin came from but not what it is worth. Having them all the same colour is a hyper-pain too. The notes work. The coinage doesn’t. And it looks shonky. It doesn’t look like the Euro my dear Fail. It looks nothing like it. I think it looks quite nice. Although by 2017 I bet it won’t buy a Coke but that is another matter. And there is also too many. I like the US system (I know they have other coins) but largely it’s 1,5,10,25 and that is your small onion. Works. OK, the fact that the nickel is bigger than the dime always annoyed me but nothing to the Euro. I also liked the dollar bill. I, being a Brit, am just not used to holding a wad of foldable. I felt like a movie star though in truth I had about enough to go to Wendy’s for a burger. The smallest paper you get here is a fiver which is worth roughly USD8.30**.

But, let’s get back to the score. The pound coin is not being scrapped. The Fail is mongering the scares. It is being replaced. Fair enough. It still has her Britannic Majesty’s head on it. It looks fuck all like a Euro. I quite like it.

*The German one has Norman Foster’s “Friendly Eagle” on it. You know the one that doesn’t invade Poland. And let us all be grateful for that. Because the last time that happened…

**So I say to my wife. “That’s good – can we go to the USA”. Problemo. Myt wife is a translator and is often paid in USD so that isn’t good. Swings and bloody roundabouts. You simply can’t win. You can run but if you do so you’ll only die tired.

It must be true because I read about it in the Daily Mail…

[Editorial note - this story is from a while back but I've been sick as a mangy hound with nastiness so never finished it. I'm back now.]

… except it isn’t. Since childhood I have been an aviation fanatic. I’m astigmatic, somewhat short sighted and RG colour blind. So when I started my degree I spoke to the recruiting officer for the East Midlands Universities Air Squadron and when I explained my ishoos I was told to politely eff off. Having said that would you really trust someone who had to be told what colour Corsodyl toothpaste is with hands on the throttle and stick of a something that costs more than David and Victoria Beckham’s house and can drop JDAMs?

Thought not.

Shame but fair enough I guess. Having said that the highest scoring fighter ace in British history, Major Edward “Mick” Mannock, Victoria Cross, Distinguished Service Order and Two Bars, Military Cross and Bar (61 confirmed kills, maybe 73) and that Irishman was blind in one eye (allegedly). He (allegedly) bribed someone in the medical section to get the sight-test chart and memorised it. I think they are a bit more careful these days. Never trust the Irish or the Daily Mail.

Why?

Prince Harry has created a scholarship to get wounded veterans behind the wheel of an iconic Spitfire.

A fine and noble goal except a Spitfire (do we need to be told it is “iconic”? Do we ever need to be told something that actually is iconic is “iconic”?) doesn’t have a wheel. No, seriously. This is a snarky piece but it is aimed against the Mail and not Harry. I knew a lass at Nottingham University who helped out with riding for the disabled. Imagine how freeing it is for a paraplegic to be astride a horse and to gain that speed, height and mobility. A Spit has rather more horses in the front so…

The scheme, inspired by Second World War pilot Douglas Bader, will see the strongest candidates move up from a Tiger Mother biplane, to a Harvard, to the bespoke craft.

A Tiger Mother? God help us! The Harvard though was the RAF’s LIFT at the time so OK there but what’s that with “bespoke”?

Oh, and we had many disabled pilots in WWII. One bloke had nose art on his Spitfire showing the arm he’d had blown off flicking the V-sign.

Harry, an Apache helicopter pilot, launched the scholarship by climbing into the cockpit of a Spitfire and starting it.

Er… He’s an Apache WSO. Whatever.

But this is astonishing…

Not Spitfires

The Mail caption is this, “Britain built about 20,000 Spitfires, but they became obsolete after the invention of the jet engine. Here, a fleet is pictured with wing commander Robert Stanford-Tuck for the 1968 film.”

I’m not even going to point out they are Hurricanes.

I can fact-check stuff in the press. But I have limits. I know about certain areas such as aviation, bits of physics, a few other odds and ends but that is my lot. Worrying isn’t it? How much can the media smuggle past you as “truth” if you don’t know the subject?

I’m just wear my Mr Sceptic hat. I’m not exactly accusing them of making things-up or even of cherry-picking things to reflect their views but of in a fundamental way not really caring about hard truth. I mean that in the sense that the Mail sees the truth of telling a heart-warming story of the dashing young prince driving fast cars for a good cause (which it is) is more important than the awkward little facts. They all do it. What we have to do is behave like small Danish boys and sometimes shout, “But I can see his willy!!!”.

D. Greenfield / Sultan Knish: The Green Socialists of Mars

A most interesting, longish piece in which Daniel Greenfield discusses the place of Climate-Alarmism, and of turn-of-the-20th-century SF, in what one might call “The Project for Social Change” (cue the Usual Suspects). Follow the Kitties to Zanzibar: Read the whole thing.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

The Green Socialists of Mars

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog — 14 Comments

We live in a strange world in which the weather is a subject of furious political debate. People have been arguing about the weather ever since the first rainstorm caught the first man without the umbrella that he did not yet know how to make, but they didn’t hold political debates over it.

For the last fifty years, the anti-weather side has been insisting that the world is headed toward a Frostean apocalypse of ice or fire. …. The end of weather was here.

[ ... ]

The original error of climate researchers was their assumption that planets were more fragile than they truly are and could be undone by a nuclear exchange or even by a few coal plants. Carl Sagan, who had done much to popularize unscientific paranoia about nuclear winter and global warming, warned that the Gulf War’s oil fires would lead to a miniature nuclear winter.

They did not.

The mingling of philosophical paranoia over a godless universe and political pacifism disguised as science shaped not only Sagan’s musings, but the entire ideology of weather apocalypses which derived from the conviction that ungoverned man was bound to destroy his environment.

[ ... ]

Socialist science fiction had become a booming field in the late 19th century. Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward had envisioned time travel to a Socialist American utopia in the year 2000. It was a bad book, but a popular bestseller because it used the frame of pseudoscience to depict Socialism as both a practical model and inevitable. …

Novels such as “Politics and Life in Mars”, “Unveiling a Parallel”, “To Mars via the Moon”, “A Prophetic Romance” and “Red Star” envisioned culturally superior Martians demonstrating their advanced Socialist societies with income equality, planetary labor unions and pacifism to the human race.

In the Russian “Red Star,” the Lowellian canals are a Communist triumph over inhospitable nature anticipating the USSR and Communist China’s disastrous dam projects. The German writer of “Two Planets” envisioned the advanced Martians invading Earth to impose their superior Socialist society on human beings.

The Martians, like Global Warming, were a tool of radical social change.

[ ... SNIP]

Ken Ham takes his dogma for a walk

Bill-Nye-vs.-Ken-Ham-Debate

Periodically, the intellectual conflict between science and religion comes to a head in the form of a debate and the results of such debates are often quite interesting and lead into areas of enlightenment that are surprising. Those who say scientists should not take part in such debates are fascists, morons and idiots.

I classify myself a lapsed-Catholic agnostic atheist (that is someone who fundamentally does not believe in god, but as a good scientist cannot prove or disprove his/her non-existence, it’s a very good form of rhetorical macramé), as such the debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and Ken Ham CEO of the Creation Museum piqued my interest.

At 2½ hours it is quite a long debate, but you need to go through it all to get a real flavour of the thing, the excerpts simply do not do it justice. As you would expect, neither side expected to win over their opponents, but this was a genuine debate for serious stakes, with the minds of children in classrooms at stake.

(more…)

Darwin, Pauli & Stuff…

I have a strong interest in biology. I actually started a biology degree but switched to physics. I have some issues with Darwinism. No I am not a creationist but I tend to think the views of folk like Lynn Margulis got side-lined and I can’t stand Dickie Dawkins. OK Margulis was mad as a box of frogs on some stuff but whatever! She was almost certainly right with symbiotic development of eukaryotic cells. And then some weird stuff in evolution is down to maths more than just pushy little replicators slugging it out (that’s quite a good joke, actually – though not at a club at 2am which is packed with sluggy and pushy little wannabe replicators). Yes, slime molds are fascinating examples of self-organisation. They ain’t pretty but neither are engine rooms. I have a maths book somewhere which deals with the way they organise. Apparently it is dead easy to write a computer program to model them. Basically they operate more like a society than a single organism. Truly bizarre but then so is a jellyfish which you can stick in a blender and then can spontaneously reform.

Biology is very strange. And we are only now starting to be getting the full sp and it is hideously mathematical (and I like maths). A maths student I knew at university was doing a PhD on cancer angiogenesis – cancers developing their own blood supply! I saw his talk on it and left feeling not 100% – and I was not alone. Like I said down in the basement there are some very unpleasant things. To say nothing of the woodshed. I guess at some level I kinda thought if I stick with biology I might get a disease named for me (and probs a very unpleasant one) but physics! Ah, you can get a star named for you. I was a romantic youth. Still am.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dissing Darwin who had a truly profound insight into the Universe. But of course he didn’t get the full toffee apple – nobody ever does. Not even Newton and in many ways Darwin was biology’s Newton. Before him it was all myopic vicars hunting butterflies and pinning them up or some such. Chemistry is mainly buggering about and trying to make epic pongs – which is why we have mainly left it to the Germans. As a kid I did a chemistry masterclass thingie in the Easter hols at Newcastle University and some student at some point had scrawled in a way that suggested some form of abysmal moral torment the phrase, “Chem is wank” on my desk. Oh, it’s useful and I’m glad other people do it but A-level was my limit and I guess seeing my teacher blow the bejesus out of the fume cupboard doing the thermite reaction (now banned in schools) straightening his tie and saying in very calm tones, “Um, quite a vigorous reaction” was enough. But this is getting off topic. It was hilarious though. And he was a good teacher. 25 years later I recall that lesson. If only we’d had facebook then that moment would have been immortal.

Anyway…

This blog has collected a load of comments by creationists from tweets, blogs and whatever. The unmitigated pignorance of them astounds me. It isn’t so much they are wrong. They are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, “nicht ganz falsch”. They are not even wrong. Hey ho! Let’s go!

@Yhwh_TheLord so then why do women have babies if we can just evolve fRom um whatever you think we evolved from?

You to old to believe in evolution. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. are they the stupid that couldn’t evolve?

I’ve never seen an animal or a micro organism become a human. So that evolution shit is out the window for me.

Evolution is atheism. It’s not science, but an impossible, unrealistic, unbiological, invented process in order to remove God from equation.

And it goes on. And on.

So why am I blogging it? I have a long-term hatred of what can be called the science/religion debate. Putting the two in opposition has never made any sense to me. It doesn’t stop folk though. I’m sat having lunch at Lenton Hall University of Nottingham in 1993 and this git sidles, yes, sidles up to me and gets chatting. Well he’s a missionary and he rapidly turns around the meet and greet into, “Well if you come back to my room I have an excellent 20 minute defence of religion against science.” I politely but firmly declined. Should I have added that many people on my physics course were religious? Nah, that obvious fact never works with these folks. Then there was the head of the Christian Union who used to organise five-aside footy and at half-time once came out with, “You know in many ways God is like a football”. What fatuous guff! How precisely is God like a football? I mean some of the greatest minds of all time have wrestled with the question of the existence and nature of God and he comes out with that utterly meaningless toss! So fuck you Descartes! God is like a football because Robin said so (he was a twat BTW – an epic twat – a twat’s twatter of a twatting twat). There was a nervous silence and a lot of folk looking at their boots until someone suggested we just get on with the second half – thank God! Need I say quite a few of us were Christians. Not me but a few of the lads. They were even more deeply embarrassed. God is like a football – oh Pity Me! (a village in County Durham BTW).

There is no real clash between science and religion because fundamentally they are about different things. I can tell you (roughly) how a hydrogen bomb works but a priest can tell you whether it should be used. It’s very much like asking a plumber about the wiring. This is not to say I don’t have ethical viewpoints and it is not to say the priest might not have a strong interest in scientific matters (note vicars and flutterbies -as my Gran used to say) it is just that they aren’t the same thing and when people attempt to conflate religion (or especially quasi-religions such as National Socialism or Communism*) with (usually pseudo) science very bad things tend to happen.

Science says how things are and how to do ‘em. It should have next to no input in the moral dimension. It doesn’t say what ought to be done. That is for all of us as moral human beings to decide. By the same token religion (and moral stuff in general) ought to take note of science and not see it as a threat. Moreover the fusing of the two is a terrible idea and the instrument of totalitarians because it makes us objects to play with in the lab. And an invented (note I reffed Pseudo science earlier) lab at that. Science and religion fill two very different human needs and arguing the toss about which is better is like arguing whether pizza is better than Coca-Cola. You might ask a bishop in a moment of spiritual doubt but you’d ask an engineer or physicist if your PWR looked shonky. And vice versa. And the same applies to all religions (or moral codes) as it does to the sciences. You wouldn’t (even though she was a scientist) ask a botanist to look at your iffy PWR any more than you’d ask a nuclear scientist to tell you the best way to get rid of the crop-infection on your farm.

Science versus Religion is possibly the greatest nicht ganz falsch in the history of thinking. Yet it goes on.

H/T Infidel753

* The Sovs were not exactly into “racial realism” but did some bizarre stuff. They had women volunteer to be inseminated with gorilla semen because Stalin wanted to cross-breed a race of invincible Planet of the Apes style warriors and workers. And yes, I do mean they genuinely volunted for the socialist cause which is the really spooky bit. Utterly bent out of shape. Here’s your monkey baby says the midwife before taking it off to the research facility 214 for “studies”. Of course it didn’t work because “perverse science” is never “correct” in any sense of the word. The very idea that Darwinism leads to communism is twisted because communism lead to Lysenkoism and attempts at disgusting cross species mating (which can’t by definition work anyway – OK up to a point it can: mules, ligers etc but human/gorilla is really pushing the envelope). Anyhoo it doesn’t take away from my point that science is morally neutral. It is. It can be twisted though. Not to put too fine a point on it this is exactly why we need different modes of thought – not just science or pseudo-science. That is why religions and other moral concepts exist and need to. Because to put a very blunt point on it any quantity of knowledge on the structure of the atom or the structure of DNA says nothing about why you shouldn’t rape, murder or steal. That is a moral question and just as religion should keep out of science science has nothing to say about religion or morality and nor should it try to. And as to “science” impinging on politics – God help us!

Islamic Vinegar

One school policy to rule them all; unless you are an aggrieved Muslim father in which case all bets are off.

That’s right.  Yet another dhimmi appeasement.

A Muslim father has removed his six-year-old daughter from school in protest at her teacher who confiscated her Islamic necklace.

Despite the fact that school regulations do did not permit the wearing of necklaces, Islamic or otherwise.  But Islam is a special basket case isn’t it.  So Tariq played the only card he holds in his hand – the offended Muslim trump.  And did it work?  Well what do you think?

The Year 2 pupil was told to take off her taweez – a chain containing verses from the Koran – after she was caught playing with it at Nottingham Academy last Monday.

A disciplinary action, surely.  You can’t be paying attention in class if you’re fiddling with an item of jewelery you shouldn’t be wearing in the first place.

As a result, Britain’s biggest school have now made a U-turn on their uniform policy, which dictates pupils can only wear one plain pair of metal studs, and say she can now wear the jewellery in class.

A singular act of cowardice from the school.  Religious offence dictates a change in school policy and the school is now guilty of undermining a member of its own staff for upholding the original, sensible rules and keeping discipline in the classroom.  Way to go Nottingham Academy.  You’ll be putting halal meat on the school menu for everyone, including non-Muslims, to eat next.  Oh, wait.  There’s a good chance you already do…

But now the school has shamefully caved in that should be the end of the problem, yes?

However, Mr Tariq has still pulled his daughter out of lessons for over a week after he branded the teacher’s actions an ‘insult to Islam.’

FFS!

Give these idiots an inch and they take a mile of piss.  Verbally disciplining his darling daughter and removing a necklace equates to a  religious hate crime?  Seriously?

He is now demanding that she be placed in a different class away from the teacher who banned her ‘sacred’ locket.

Well the school caved in once so why not issue another outrageous demand to see if the school rolls over even more quickly?  The law of unintended consequences anyone?

Yesterday Mr Tariq said: ‘My daughter was really upset about it when she came home – she was in floods of tears.

How traumatic!  What is the world coming to when a kuffar teacher corrects a distracted Muslim child in the classroom?

‘This is very sacred to her and to our religion. It should not be taken off Muslims and it is something she holds very dear indeed.

All secular schools must kowtow to Muslim demands or else.  Islam is a special case so your rules do not apply to Muslims and don’t you forget it.

‘To have it taken off her for the entire day and be shouted at by her teacher like that is an insult to our religion.

Diddums.   Kids get disciplined by their teachers every day but their parents don’t usually create about it or try to turn it into a religious hate crime.

She said she had only been itching her neck and had got the taweez out to scratch her neck.

Why would she need to take the entire thing out just to scratch her neck?  Or isn’t it Islamic to simply reach behind and scratch?

‘But the teacher thought she was playing with it and swinging it about.

Probably because that is precisely what the girl was doing.

‘The whole thing really upset her and I don’t think she is happy in the class any more.

Kids attend school to be educated.  Not being happy with teacher from time to time is par for the course.  Discipline in the classroom isn’t a popularity contest and nor should it ever be.  Until Miss Tariq learns that “no” means “no” she’s going to remain unhappy.  It’s a shame her father failed to teach her that before she started school.  But then he clearly doesn’t understand what “no” means either.  Nor does the school apparently.

I think it will be better if she moves to a different class so I have taken her out of school until we can get this issue resolved.

I think Tariq should be prosecuted for keeping his daughter out of school and depriving her of part of her education in an attempt to blackmail said school into giving in to his delusional demands.

The academy has now agreed that Saniya can wear the item on religious grounds – except in PE and swimming.

Spineless!

Saniya, who lives with her parents in Bakersfield, Nottinghamshire, said: ‘I wear it every day.  My taweez means a lot to me and I think she should have asked my parents before making me take it off.’

It was teacher’s fault!  And now I can play with my necklace in class whenever I want and not suffer the consequences because they would be an insult to the beliefs of my, and my parents, Dark Ages religion including the bits they make up as they go along.

Headteacher Steve Jones said: ‘After speaking to Mr Tariq about his daughter, we decided Saniya could keep her necklace on in school, under her polo shirt, apart from the PE and swimming lessons.

He’s talking like the child is a special, one-off case.  Here’s news for you Steve Jones, she isn’t and she won’t be.  Not now you have sold out your school rules.  You should have told Tariq to go up himself.  Instead you have let an Islamic genie out of the bottle that will be used against other schools now that you have set a precedent.

We would always consider exemptions on the basis of religious principles.

Then why bother having a school policy at all if any Tom, Dick or Tariq can come along and bend it to suit their own religious prejudices?

Indeed, in Saniya’s case, we were able to reach a compromise with Mr Tariq.’

So the child can remove the necklace but only when the father dictates to the school she can?  And this is called “compromise” is it?

Other parents gathered at the school gates gave mixed opinions on the incident.

One mum, whose son goes to the school, but did not wish to be named, accused the head of caving in and bending the rules.

Bending the rules in this way is a smack in the face to everyone who abides by the rules.  I wouldn’t want to send my kids to any school that prefers to undermine its own staff and policy to suit the unreasonable demands of one religiously intolerant individual.

She said: ‘It is ridiculous that they felt threatened enough to change the rules like this.

If it was a lad with a Christian cross and he was messing with it then I am almost certain the rules wouldn’t have been bent to let him wear it.

And, quite probably, would have been told not to misbehave in class if he went home and whinged to his parents about it.

At the end of the day if the girl is messing with the chain and it is distracting her or others from working then that’s why the rules are there.

Quite.  If this lady gets it why didn’t the school?

Another father said: ‘I agree it was wrong as it does mean that much to them as a religion.

Actually it doesn’t mean any such thing.  If it did the Muslim professionally aggrieved posse would have potted this supposed “insult” by challenging school policies regarding “sacred” necklaces long ago.   I suspect the Nottingham outbreak was down to a one man band.  Expect this “sacred necklace” crap to go viral.

However, they have said she can wear it in class now – so surely that should be the problem resolved.

I have a sign that says Beware Low Flying Pigs he can stick at the bottom of his garden.

The gift that keeps on giving…

… to the fisker. Yes, “Sir” Bob Geldof who wanks higher than any in Wome. Read this…

Bob Geldof has claimed that the Earth as we know it could end by 2030 thanks to the ravages of climate change.

That’s actually quite unfiskable in the sense that I don’t want (if I am spared to be living in 2013 seventeen years hence – I want my jet-pack!). Anyway the Boomtown Prat proceeds…

The campaigner [for whom?] and former Boomtown Rats singer said the human race could soon be extinct at the One Young World summit in Johannesburg.

“The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself,” he said, according to the Telegraph. “Sometimes progress may not be possible.”

Well, it certainly wasn’t in his musical career. He could have been a veritable Chesney Hawkes and wasn’t it Midge Ure who wrote that song anyway?

“We’re in a very fraught time,” he continued, warning the 8,000 international delegates: “There will be a mass extinction event. That could happen on your watch. The signs are that it will happen and soon.”

You can’t make this up. Anyway how old are his kids? Like that one who fronted a show on Islam without even having read the Qu’ran? Was that Peaches?

The conference – a networking and debate event for young people from 190 countries – featured speeches from high profile ‘counsellors’. Former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan and business mogul Richard Branson also took to the stage, but none appeared to match Mr Geldof for urgency.

Is his prostate playing up? But more to the point isn’t telling “young people” they basically have no future nasty? This from the guy that apparently worked so hard for Ethiopia’s future?

And school’s out early and soon we’ll be learning
And the lesson today is how to die.

- From the only Boomtown Rats song anyone recalls.

There was more guff but I’ll give Bob the penultimate words…

Departing the stage, he apologised for being “bloody miserable” and told delegates to “just get on with it”.

What horrifying nonsense is this? I have a tremendous hope for the future. I shall probs live to see things from SF novels I read as a kid. How dare “Sir” Bob tell kids, “Sometimes progress may not be possible”. Get them a Raspberry Pi and see what fools they make of pontificating old geezers like Bob and Dave! Gods almighty they are misanthropic old sods are they not?

Let’s just build Skylon and stick ‘em in eternal LEO! Way too much political discourse is undertaken at the level of a Smith’s album after Johnnie Marr had just run over Mozzer’s cat. It is dismal. Utter professional miserablism.

And I was only on the Indy to look-up a recipe for cod and parma ham and now I don’t like Mondays and Heaven knows I’m miserable now.

Why I hate the Daily Mail.

Well, the Miliband stuff is beyond anyone’s pale.

I disagree with Ed Miliband on much but there is a hop, skip and jump between that and the virtual grave-robbing they’ve done recently.

But that (vile though it is) is not the real reason. The real reasons are the comments section called [out of their] Right Minds. It’s like a mirror image of the Guardian’s Comment is Free.

But nah, it ain’t even that. Nor is it the obsession with house prices (like the cost of a basic essential going-up is like a good thing?) or their idea that the entire population of Bulgaria is going to sell children to peadophiles in Midsommer next Thursday.

No. It is (and I have previously mentioned this) the right sidebar called “Femail”. Now apart from the name being hideously cute like a kitten that has just puked on a Persian rug it is (very) soft porn whilst the main editorial rants and raves about porn as though it were the work of Satan himself. The hypocrisy is risible in it’s obviousness. I have seen “Femail” sidebar stories trumpeting some starlet’s weight loss post-partum to size 6 (UK) next to polemics against the “media” (which clearly doesn’t include the Mail) for encouraging eating disorders in kids. Or some rant or rave about binge drinking or whatever next to some pic of some X-Factor wannabe falling out of her dress (and a nightclub) simultaneously.

But the Miliband thing is a shark-jump.

I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Mail – even if I were Venezuelan.

And this is not because I like Ed Miliband. It is because this is plain nasty. If I disagree with the leader of the opposition I shall so and why. I won’t go after his dead father.

And this is the same paper that has campaigned for mandatory IP porn filters that you have to opt out of to protect the kids. But when it gets called on this dreadful stunt starts wibbling about “press freedom”. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the paper ought to have been banned. I’m not saying they ought to be censored (or whatever) but… If they have the right to offend (and they do) then I have the right to be offended. By their grossness over the late Mr Miliband and their serial set of double standards that makes Dr Erwin Schrödinger’s moggie know whether it is coming or going.

Oh, and their football coverage is shite. Their coverage of WAGs (and their handbags that cost more than my wife’s car) on the otherhand…

If wishes were Porsches…

…our political effete, according to the recent (and ongoing) ano-cerebral effusions emanating from the LibLabCon party political conferences, remain incompetently pedestrian and intellectually gastropodal.

Trying to out-stupid everyone else by applying a thick coat of Pledge (sic) to turds and desperately making outrageous and unworkable promises that we know from bitter experience will perish faster than a duck on a lava lake if they get into office, is just scamelling embarrassing. Come the next general election, if there is a reason to vote for any these morons hidden deep within their rabid electioneering rhetorical bollocks I haven’t found it yet.

Nick Clegg has a plan…

When I first heard that the Lib-Dem “flag-ship” proposal (to distance themselves from the Tories) was a 5p levy (to go to like charidee) on placky bags I almost wet myself with mirth. God knows what William Gladstone would think. The Mash as ever has it spot-on.

PLASTIC bags are to be printed with lurid sexual imagery in a bid to discourage their use. Tesco bags will carry an image of a dwarf having sex with a trumpet, while Sainsbury’s carriers will feature a manga-style orgy involving sexy animals.

A government spokesman said: “A detailed design showing a woodland creature getting wanked off will do much more to reduce plastic consumption than a paltry 5p charge.

“Shoppers will stop and think ‘do I really need this bag enough that I am prepared to walk through town carrying a picture of a squirrel with a massive erection?’”

Mother-of-two Nikki Hollis said: “It’s a good idea in principle but yesterday I forgot my ‘bag for life’ at Morrison’s so the checkout girl gave me carriers showing male bikers stroking each other’s bits.

“Now my children want leather jackets for Christmas.”

The spokesman added: “We’ve made an exception with Waitrose bags. Waitrose shoppers will simply be offered Lidl bags, or nothing at all.”

Shopper Roy Hobbs said: “It’s great to see the government taking positive action. I care about the planet so I’ve got a rustic hessian satchel in which to place all my plastic-packaged shopping.”

Absolute fucking genius. And, yes, for once, I quoted the whole thing. Nothing else would do. Charge me 5p.

Wreck the Casbah. Again.

Ooer, Missus.  Someone really has got his knickers in a knot.

Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency.

It seems that Andrew Roberts would have us believe that Cameron is a shining beacon of masterful statesmanship rather than the vacillating and incompetent spiv we know he really is.  It was the Assad regime wot dunnit because that is the direction in which the Prime Ministerial finger has been told to point.   Others beg to differ.  Our masters are demanding that we discriminate between two evils, despite the lack of any substantiated evidence, when it is far from clear which evil, if any, is the lesser. The only decent thing we can do in such circumstances is to not bomb the crap out of Damascus and kill even more civilians in the name of defending a questionable sense of “decency”.

A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.

If future historians display the blind stupidity Andrew Roberts appears to possess who gives a Scammel Truck what they think?

The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons.

I think the operative word in that sentence is former, everything else is hyperventilated twaddle.  We are a small group of islands.  We are broke.  We no longer have the military might we once possessed.  We can’t even equip an aircraft carrier without the assistance of the French.  Our responsibility is to supply humanitarian aid and nothing more.  Let the Arabs sort their own mess out.  They’re going to blame us for the outcome whether we send in the missiles or not.

The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.

Because everyone who came out against bombing Damascus without the benefit of proof is a tofu-eating, Guardian reading surrender marmoset?  Because what we are all required to be are trained acceptance monkeys who swallow every morsel of posturing bollocks fed to us by our political effete, no questions asked?

Where were the references to Winston Churchill, 1940 or the Battle of Britain? They were replaced by children jumping up and down on NHS beds.

STOP PRESS! World War II ends in 1945.  Shift forwards sixty-eight years and the dumb as rocks legacy media runs stories about trampolining kiddies as Syria descends deeper into sectarian violence.   Meanwhile a so called academic jumps up and down on the spot, making a weapons grade prat of himself over something he clearly doesn’t have much of a clue about other than what Cameron says is true because his pal Barry told him so.  And all this before the UN investigation team have even begun to write their report.

I don’t recognise this culturally, socially and morally very different country. On Thursday night the majority of our Parliament knew that they had nothing to fear from their constituents if they indulged in a gross display of Little Englandism, in stark contrast to centuries of traditionally supporting the victims of monstrous oppression.

I don’t recall reading Roberts’ moral outrage about our non-intervention in Rwanda.  Or is genocide not as monstrously oppressive as CWs in Big Academia’s view?

And nothing qualifies as worse oppression than having at least 1,429 innocents slaughtered – 400 of those children – with a weapon so obscene that the world came together in Geneva in 1925 to outlaw it. The only people to have used this monstrous weapon since then have been Benito Mussolini against the Ethiopians in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler in his war against the Jews in the 1940s, and Saddam Hussein in his massacre of the Kurds in the 1980s.

How about the fanatical religious terrorists, Aum Shinriyko, who released Sarin gas into Tokyo’s subway in 1995?  Don’t they count because they were an evil cult rather than an evil regime?

The re-emergence of this foul weapon in the Damascus suburb ought to have – especially as we prepare to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War – brought together the House of Commons in solemn support of the Prime Minister’s commendable efforts to punish Assad for taking it out of history’s Pandora’s Box and unleashing it on his own people.

The Prime Minister’s commendable efforts to punish someone whose guilt has only been proven in the court of Australian giant marsupialism Obama his opinion?  For once the HoC did the right thing.  There is nothing commendable about Cameron’s efforts to push us into a war where both sides are as evil as each other.

Yet instead Mr Cameron’s initiative, which stood foursquare in the historical tradition of previous prime ministers faced with such a crime, was voted down. Have we really been so traumatised by the decision to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 that we cannot even fire a few missiles at a vicious dictator like Assad? If so, Britain’s days as a power that deserves its prominent position in Nato and the United Nations Security Council are going to come to an end.

But we won’t be firing them at Assad.  We’ll be firing them at a city where people live.  And we will be doing it in support of Sunni terrorists rebels who are every bit as vicious as Assad and are as equally capable of using Sarin gas.  For all we know they may already have.

Our ineptitude is compounded by U.S president Barack Obama’s decisive statement last night that military strikes are needed. Yes, he is seeking congressional authority. But he has also declared that he will take unilateral action and ‘confront the menace’ alone.

Obama, no matter how tumescent for war he becomes, is going to have to consult Congress first and Congress seems so concerned about the urgency of the situation it isn’t going to convene and discuss the matter until 9th September when hopefully the information regarding the identity of the guilty parties will be more robust.  If Congress follows the UK’s lead and says no will that make the Yanks global spectating, bagel-eating surrender monkeys in Roberts’ gimlet eyes?

And what of the quality of Obama’s leadership?  This is the man who took fourteen days to admit the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, that took the lives of four American citizens including the US ambassador, was a planned and efficiently executed terrorist attack and not due to a mob enraged by by a pathetic film called Innocence of Muslims.  Suddenly he knows exactly who the Syrian CW culprits are before anyone has had a chance to actually investigate what happened?  And we are all yoghurt knitting traitors for not bowing down to The One’s prescience on all matters Middle East?

Of course there are plenty of Britons who would love to see Britain relegated to the sidelines of world history, and simply opt for the quiet life. All too often, we see on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, a new generation who want Britain to become just another minor power that watches events from the sidelines: another Norway, Japan, Sweden or Ireland. Somewhere that likes to be liked. Lovely countries all, but they do not matter on the world stage like Britain did – until Thursday night.

That’s bollocks on steroids.  The people of this country will fight tooth and nail to protect their own against invasion no matter what bilge they spout on Twatter or Farcebook.  What we are sick to death of is brain-dead, glory hunting, self-aggrandising politicians getting us involved in wars we have no business poking our noses into especially when we don’t have an ice crystal’s chance in hell of either winning or improving the situation by bombing stuff and hoping for the best.  We already know from bitter experience that this strategy doesn’t work.

I could continue to fisk Roberts’ dross but what would be the point?  It seems that Roberts’ main gripe is that the so called, very one-sided “special relationship” has been fatally compromised.  He thinks that because the majority of people in Britain are against intervention in Syria, with or without proof, its because we are all traitors in the Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden mould.  He fails to consider that we’re Scammelling sick of bankrolling and fighting foreign wars that improve nothing, solve nothing, achieve nothing and come at a cost in lives politicians and their families rarely, if ever, have to pay.

Ever since the initial footage of an unconfirmed CW attack was released onto YouTube the US and UK governments have been arguing the case for “punishing” Assad because the “rebels” couldn’t possibly have obtained a CW (Sarin gas) and deployed it. If Sarin gas is so hard to obtain, unless you are a tyrannical government, how did the religious fanatics of Aum Shinrikyo managed to get hold of enough of the stuff to launch not one but two attacks before they were caught?

The first attack, in 1994 killed seven people and injured five hundred.  The second attack came in 1995, when Sarin gas was released into the Tokyo subway during the morning rush hour.  Eight people died  and thousands were injured, many critically.  It remains the worst terrorist atrocity to take place on Japanese soil.  So who supplied the cult with CW?  Some rogue state?  No.  They manufactured it themselves in a laboratory.  Is it such a huge leap to believe that Islamic terrorists, who we know can manufacture Ricin, also have the knowledge to manufacture Sarin gas?  After all, the poison has been around since 1938 so the procedure can’t be that complicated.

To point the finger at Assad alone is disingenuous.  It is a dangerous lie to insist that only the Assad regime has the capability to possess and deploy CWs in Syria.  To go ahead and launch missiles using this deeply suspect presumption as a justification  is nothing less than a war crime.

Hysterical warmongering aside, no must mean no.  We’ve had enough of this false prospectus, interventionist BS.  End of.

 

…As opposed to Imaginary ?

I have just been presented with a can of fancy-schmancy tomato soup.

It says, right there on the label, in LARGE red letters:

“REAL INGREDIENTS !”

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

“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

The poster boy for a mad movement: Charlie Veitch     Photo: Will Storr

The poster boy for a mad movement': Charlie Veitch Photo: Will Storr

By Will Storr

7:00AM BST 29 May 2013
237 Comments

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

Phil Ossify

Phil Plait (sic), an astronomer and climate alarmist who bizarrely states to possess The entire universe in blog form is a self confessed zombie slayer. His zombies are very scary because they take the shape of ideas of climate change denial. Because climate change deniers and their heretical ideas are born from the festering boils on Satan’s scaly backside and it is the bounden duty of the righteous to kill dissent the facts evil unbelievers.

Thus he tilts at his own personal windmill wind turbine when he attempts to slay this anti-AGW beast 0f an idea, armed only with a Warmist approved crib sheet and a small group of sycophants acolytes.

As someone who speaks out against those who deny climate change…

But he doesn’t mean climate change, does he. He means Anthropogenic Global Warming. Only an imbecile denies the existence of climate change. AGW sceptics don’t deny climate change. They do, however, question the extent to which human activity affects the climate. And that gets right up Phil’s nose.

again

Oh, those wacky professional climate change deniers! Once again, they’ve banded together a passel of people, 90 percent of whom aren’t even climatologists…

Clearly Phil doesn’t do irony well. Or perhaps understand it either since he’s an astronomer and not a climatologist. He obligingly supplies a link to the offending document but doesn’t go quite so far as to pointing out which parts of the nearly fact free opinion piece are bilge and which parts are nonsense. Or, for that matter, which fact or facts he considers to be correct. Given his in-your-face, post normal science credentials I’m assuming the facts he’s happy with are the very facts under dispute by the signatories. After all, who wants to read about the claims of that international relations and public administration guru august scientist, Ban Ki-Moon, a world renown climatologist, being being brought into disrepute by all those upstart physicists, chemists, geologists, engineers and meteorologists?

And then there is that pesky “cherry-picked” graph that David Rose, a Daily Mail journalist, used to demonstrate the ongoing lack of warming that came to a halt in 1997.

The first graph clearly incenses Phil.  Not because the data is wrong, which it isn’t, but because it begins in 1997.  You see it is difficult to put a nice, straight, upwardly trending line through truncated data that clearly shows a flat line.  So Phil helpfully supplies a second graph, one whose plotted data begins somewhere in the mid seventies, so he can draw his neat, upwardly mobile line.

But wait.  Didn’t the previous cool period end sometime in the mid seventies?  You know, the same cool period that had climatology Cassandras predicting an imminent ice age?  Wouldn’t the exclusion of that data give the false impression that the climate was warming prior to the vague starting date of Phil’s preferred graph?  Did he think no one would notice his own cherry-picking?

…and again

Ah, yes. Hot from the University of Consensus, Not Facts.  It seems that I am forced to repeat myself so here goes.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny the reality existence of global warming.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny that man does alter the climate in a certain way, albeit in a mostly localised way (UHI, agriculture, pastoralism etc) and has done for thousands of years. It is interesting that Phil uses the word reality rather than existence because clearly his reality does not inhabit the realm of real world data. Even his own alarmist side has finally acknowledged that global surface temperature stopped rising sixteen years ago. Phil desperately needs to keep up to speed on the recent developments otherwise he could end up sounding like a fool.

Uh oh.  Too late.

…and again

Apparently a burning issue within the alarmist camp Phil’s reality is who labelled what.

Seriously…

…and again….

Carbon dioxide is eeeeeeevil! And Mariana Ashley agrees.

Mariana Who?

Oh, that Mariana Ashley.

Mariana Ashley is a freelance blogger who primarily writes about how online education and technology are transforming academia as we know it. Having spent a good portion of her professional career trying to reform high schools in East St. Louis, Mariana is particularly interested in how online colleges in Missouri make higher education a possibility for students of all backgrounds.

I see she’s very shy about touting her degree in climatology.  Or Phil is a shameless hypocrite.

I knew exactly what Marshall Shepherd, the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, meant the moment he talked about having to slay the “zombie theories of climate science.

Strangely enough AGW sceptics have the same problem. As for zombie slaying, it seems that Marshall received the idea first. Phil borrowed his slayership from Marshall just like he’s borrowed the rest of his warmist mantra from fellow alarmists.  I have yet to encounter an original idea in Phil’s posts.  All his arguments are from discredited, climate groupthink authority.

These are ideas that cannot be killed, no matter how thoroughly they are debunked. They always rise to shamble again, reanimated by the deniosphere.

Yes, the idea that honest data and falsifiable empirical evidence trumps climate modelling and name-calling does have that peculiar undead quality. It simply refuses to lie down and die in the face of stupidity.

The Hockey Stick is broken.

True.

…the world hasn’t warmed in 16 years…

Also true.

Antarctic ice is growing.

At a rapid rate.

These ideas are all wrong, demonstrably so, but they are still walking the countryside, looking to eat innocent people’s brains.

These facts are all correct, demonstrably so. Even the most senior of warmists have conceded that warming has ceased. They are all deniers now. Except Phil and his cheerleaders of course.

The only way to slay these undead specters is to keep hammering them, repeating the facts, getting the word out there, and making the message palatable to the folks who may not have all the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming.

Phil’s problem is that people are discovering the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming. Unfortunately for Phil it isn’t the right kind of information. Hysteria and alarmism tend not to make any kind of message palatable especially when it is becoming increasingly expensive to keep warm in winter. I award Phil an F for his communication skills.

Which brings us back to Shepherd. He gave a great TEDxAtlanta talk where he takes on the teeming mass of climate change denial zombie ideas.

The science has moved on, even for the warmists. Watch the video and decide for yourselves which side owns the teeming mass of climate change zombie ideas.

I love this guy. He’s reasoned, genial, and calm.

A veritable paragon of warmist virtue, I’m sure.

My favorite part was at 11:34 into his talk, when he says weather is your mood, but climate is your personality.

Which is as meaningless as saying weather is your toast but climate is a full English breakfast. But hey, Phil was impressed so you should be too.

This one is important because the deniers love to say, “what global warming?” every time it snows. Incredibly, though, this type of claim seems to work; people tend to believe more in global warming after a hot summer and less after it’s cold. Slaying that particular zombie would go a long way toward more folks accepting that global warming is real.

Yes, how silly of people to point out the bleeding obvious mistake  summer and winter for regular seasons rather than what they really are; runaway global warming.

Tied to this is the idea that we can’t be certain what the future holds. Climate models aren’t perfect, so we can’t be 100 percent sure how much the world is warming.

Because the climate models predicted more snow, not less. They predicted that temperature is not driven by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. And they also predicted the ongoing sixteen year halt in warming. Except no, they didn’t predict any of those things.  They can’t even simulate past climate.  We might be able to guess what the future holds but in truth we have no idea really. Nor do climate models. The only certainty is uncertainty and guesswork.  You’d think that Phil would understand that.

However, when it comes to knowing that climate change is real and we’re in for trouble, the models are already good enough.

Hardly.

The hockey-stick graph is quite real and has withstood years of slings and arrows flung at it by the deniers.

Right up until the moment it was defenestrated by the corrupt and biased UN IPCC for being too embarrassingly wrong for even it to stomach.

And in fact the models are getting better all the time; it’s getting hotter, and in the next few decades we’re in for a hell of a time.

The only thing getting hotter is Phil’s warmist fever.

We need to be doing something about this, and now.

Think of the cheeeeldren!

We need to be investigating nonfossil fuel energy sources far more, really leaning in on finding more efficient uses of the fossil fuels we do have to use, and legislating ways of making sure there are incentives for people and companies to do so.

Using fossil fuels more efficiently will benefit everyone. Making them unaffordable in order to fund unreliable renewable energy that needs fossil fuel back-up is insane. State “incentives” to replace reliable fossil fuels with hideously expensive and inadequate green energy is killing people and industry. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

But instead we have to waste our time fighting the horde of zombie denials and trying to be heard above the well-funded and very loud groups who rely on distraction and false doubt to spread their viral ideas. This is the zombie apocalypse, and, unfortunately, it’s all too real.

And Phil calls himself a scientist…

Maggie and Russell…

I have considered fisking this but God knows where to start. Every 8 bits of ASCII in it makes a decent human being want to vomit blood. I have always despised Russell Brand but this takes the cake. Read the whole thing if you can stomach it.

Maggie was a stateswoman who made my life better, Brand is allegedly a “comedian” who has consistenetly failed to make me laugh and he can take his “Bookie-Wook” and stick it up his arse.

Apparenttly Brand has been treated for “sex addiction” (trans: not being able to keep one’s dick in one’s pants – something that normal people learn as toddlers but then Russell Brand is not a normal person – such as the child of a grocer for example). No. Brand is an example of the sub-species H. sapiens bellendius. A member of a related (to us) species not fit to lick Maggie’s toilet bowl clean even after Willie Whitelaw had been round and had partaken of rathere too many sweet sherries than were strictly speaking good for him.

One wonders who his “sexual addiction” played with because he has the intrinsic charm of some form of scote and the general look of a “gentleman of the road” who has been dragged through the Labortaire Garnier backwards – twice. Call me naive but I can’t imagine getting that look without being urinated upon by tramps whilst sleeping in bus-stops and then going for a 3 for 2 at Boots on hair “product”.

As a heterosexual male I like tits but he is a tit unwelcome in this gaff. He would scare the cat apart from anything.

Margaret Thatcher – we shall, alas, never see her like again. Twats like Russell Brand we shall the ilk of again and again and again…

Because simply by being agin anything good or decent or proper they are “cool”. Well, here is the truth. I (and I doubt Maggie was either) averse to a bit of fun and I have done questionable things. Once with a shopping trolley in Leeds. I have been naughty. I knew I was being naughty – that’s why it was fun! Of course much of my fun is totally like whatever but you don’t wanna hear about that do you? You know, “My wife and I played Scrabble”. You want the mental stuff like when I was ticked-off by the fuzz for screwing a Finnish bird against a statue of Sir Walter Raleigh in Whitehall.

She felt the need (she was extremely drunk) to add to the copper that she was writing her MA thesis on him. This is a prime example of something being true (yes, it was) but not useful.

And that at some depraved level is my point. There is something unbelievably priggish about Brand. He seems to want things to be “allowed” (though not drugs – with which he has had capers – no! he wants them banned) whereas the rest of us just do it anyway. He talks about Maggie’s “Schoolmarm-ishness” without realising he is vastly more didactic. Except he and his pals feel they can tell us what we can get away with.

You are not a developed country because you have laws that allow x,y,z. You are because nobody in thousnds of years has thought to enact a law contra x,y,z.

Maggie understood this. Brand clearly does not.

Baroness Thatcher shall be venerated in this nation – and other places – for a thousand years. Russell Brand will have his DVDs in the “bargain bucket” at 99p a go before this post is a week old.

BTW, the Finn was much better looking (and smarter) than Katy Perry. But then she really was a firework, and so was Maggie. My Prime Minister.

NickM, born 1973.

%d bloggers like this: