Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

January 5th, 2013:

Diane Abbott partly to blame for breakdown in joined-up thinking.

She’s at it again!  Diane Abbott flaps her gums and spews weapons grade bollocks.  According to the headline she reckons that broken families, obesity and alcoholism are partly down to people like…erm…herself.

Scratches head.  That can’t be right, can it?

Oh, wait, this is what she said…

Ms Abbott, the shadow public health minister, urged the left to recognise that problems such as obesity and alcoholism, often stem from such breakdown.

Or can be the cause of them perhaps?  But let’s not let that little worm of a fact get in the way of HMS Titanic Diane as her hulk chugs magisterially into yet another iceberg of leftist folly.  Let’s not forget stuff like this.  The State runs its own lucarative sideline in busting up families because Nanny knows best and not always for the better.

Feminists should be able to talk about these issues and they should not be confined to the pages of women’s magazines, she argued.

That’s all we need, more vapid pedlars of leftist, man-hating, groupthink twaddle in the mainstream.  Thanks, Diane.

She told The Guardian newspaper: “As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families.

Actually, your party has done it’s level best to make sure that the State interferes in family life at the most basic level, usurping the authority of parents.  What are you, Hatty and your legion of feministas going to say about that?

“In the 1980s, we used to say: ‘A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.’

That’s because you were, and still are, deeply stupid.

“The more academic version was: ‘The family is the site of women’s oppression.’ So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home.”

I come from a long line of working class women.  They didn’t have the luxury of staying home and playing at happy families.  They had to get off their arses and work hard as well as bring up the kids and run the home.  They didn’t moan about oppression, they just got on with it.  As a result they worked themselves out of poverty to the point where their descendants enjoy all the trappings of a middle class existence.  But it didn’t stop there, Diane.  We descendents still work  hard because we want to keep what we’ve worked so hard for.  We work to counter the tax everything and then tax it again spite your Labour rabble heaped upon us in the name of “fairness”.  We don’t down tools and fuck off to some arty farty, women’s supplement to produce reams of snide shite about the sisters who refused to abandon their responsibilities.

But “some kind of stable family structure” was vital and was what most people want around them, she said, adding: “I do not think we should abandon that terrain to the right.”

But isn’t that exactly what you did?  For bloody generations?  Now all of a sudden the Right, when it comes to preserving the structure of the family, is no longer wrong because it suits your nu-puritan authoritarian agenda?  You double-dyed, hypocritical sack of offal!

Ms Abbott also called for local authorities to be given greater powers to stop fried chicken shops and other fast food outlets from proliferating, and to stop alcohol from being sold cheaply, especially near schools.

Yes, because high street names like KFC and Micky D’s are destroyers of families everywhere.  All you have to do is look through their propaganda covered windows and see families enjoying ripping themselves apart eating poison that the staff are forcing down their throats because no one in their right minds would do it by choice.  After all, the kids should be eating healthy food so that they can remain thin and whip-like just like you, Diane.

As an aside, anyone advocating more power to government, local or otherwise, should be stewed for eternity in a vat of their own statist venom.

She claimed young people were not only eating fast food on a regular basis but that their lives were also being “saturated with porn and sex” to a much greater degree than children’s lives were two decades ago.

Wow, Diane’s on a roll!  But where is the evidence for this porn “saturation”?  We only get her big, fat lefty opinion.  However, she has an answer to the problem.  Oh, yes indeedy.

She called for tighter controls on children’s access to the internet to help tackle this.

Which, reading between the lines, means tighter access to the internet for everyone because…think of the cheeeeeldren!  I think that sorely abused guilt horse is ready for the knackers yard because it’s plumb worn out.

Parents also had their own part to play, she argued, accusing some of being guilty of “McParenting,” compensating for a lack of parental responsibility by buying consumer goods for their children.

Because let’s NOT support the industries and workers who make such trinkets that people actually want?  Because buying presents for our kids is evil and the worst kind of parental abuse and must be stamped out?  What a load of McBollocks.

Instead of reading to their children or taking them to a library, such parents might be dressing their children in branded clothing and mistakenly believing they were fulfilling their parental duties in so, she said.

You could begin with removing the VAT from books and stop closing libraries. You could also stop encouraging the never have nor never will have a job underclass to produce kids they have no intention of working to keep.

At what point of buying children clothes they like does parental abuse/neglect begin?  Or should everyone refrain from buying nice stuff for their kids because they don’t vote Labour Diane abused her own brat with buying him nice stuff and sending him to a private school and is now laying a lefty guilt trip on us by way of redemption?  What frigging planet does this moron inhabit?

She starts off blaming the family busting femininist agenda yet somehow ends up blaming breakups on parents being nice to their kids.  As a bonus she gets in wedges of the lefty ban everything we disapprove of agenda between the cracks.  This shambolic piece of tosh is something we should pay attention to?

Oh Diane, you vacuous polisher of HoC bench leather, your nauseating stupidity that passes for righteous campaigning pollutes the air we all have to breathe.  Can you please just stop?

Nominal GDP targeting!

Whenever bankers and politicians start using opaque, flowery prose to describe something simple, you know it’s bad.  And today’s phrase is ‘nominal GDP targeting’

Now in fairness, our central banking overlords might do well to consider a new approach, the current one having failed so spectacularly.  You will recall the Bank of England rarely hit its 2% inflation target, and Mervyn King ended up sending George Osborne more letters than a besotted school girl sends Robert Pattison.  If a double-glazing salesman missed his target as often as Mervyn did, he would have been sacked long ago, but then we expect higher standards from people who sell windows door-to-door.

The UK economy is about 3% smaller than in 2008 but we are paying about 15% more for our troubles.  I am unclear why higher prices are a good thing for us in this context but then I am more stupid than our wise overlords.

Rather than allowing the corrections and liquidations to occur as Austrians think they should, the B of E quadrupled its balance sheet and monetised a third of our entire national debt.  Straight Mugabe-economics with the fig-leaf of buying our own sovereign bonds in the never-never pretence that we will one day ‘repay this money’ I wonder who we would repay? Ourselves?

Now this is a disaster for anyone with eyes to see and the ability to tell the truth, so we can discount most of parliament.  My guess is about 95% of ‘em just don’t understand and the 5% who do can’t see any other way, having been inculcated in the system for so long.

But never fear, we maybe about to try something ‘new’ apparently.  Chancellor George Osborne has recruited Mark Carney, the ‘finest central banker of his generation’ Sounds to me like damning with faint praise, but I think George was serious.  You may remember Alan Greenspan was the former holder of that title.

So what is ‘nominal GDP targeting’?  Apparently you set a nominal GDP target (key word being nominal not real or actual) of say 5%.  This is composed of the aggregate of inflation and growth.  So say you achieve only a 3% nominal GDP target (say 2% inflation and 1% growth) you simply print some more cash and stoke inflation and with it growth.  In some way.  Even if your economy fails to grow at all, or goes into reverse again, all you have to do is create enough inflation and hey presto you are on target.  I presume the bureaucrats discount the possibility of growth above 5% and in current circumstances I think they are correct to do so.

That’s it.  A smokescreen to keep the printing presses whirring without the tiresome necessity of having to write letters explaining why you are a failure in your own terms.  Private Frazer, your time is now

For a fuller and frankly better explanation of the above, take a look at this website

Si vis pacem, para bellum

More on violence…this time, regarding self-defense, and how it doesn’t come naturally to some of us; and then, an example of how pacifism once worked out in Africa. From the ChiefIO…. Many worthwhile comments follow.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Posted on 2 January 2013 by E.M.Smith

There are times when you run into such a stellar example of something that it really cries out for a more prominent place in history and teaching.

One of the ongoing broken ideas that constantly circulates is the “Pacifist” ideal. Just refuse to fight and everything will be better. I was crippled by well meaning folks (my Mom, mostly, but also some religious sorts) telling me that “fighting is wrong”. And that “turn the other cheek” was the right way to handle things. That, mostly, got me beat up until most of my way through High School when I decided to ‘try the other way’. A “showdown” followed and, well, I didn’t even have to hit one person. Just making it clear that I was “prepared for war” and, in a way, looking forward to some well deserved “pay back” promptly ended things. NEVER to return.

Sorry, are you being truthful?

This picture allegedly captures the moment, President Obama heard the news of the recent school shootings.

Well call me sceptical, and it could of course be true, but really?

The Prez walks around in his jacket all day indoors does he?  If so, he is the only person I have ever know do so.  Then we have the perfectly lit photo, the passionate, caring moment of sadness, could all be true I suppose.

Maybe a photographer stalks Obama in his every move and is present regardless of whatever briefing is going ahead.

Or maybe not.  Maybe it’s a nasty, staged attempt to capitalise on the death of kids to push an anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda?

No, he would never do that, right?  That would be simply outrageous and the Obama Whitehouse doesn’t do that sort of thing.

%d bloggers like this: