Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Quote of the Day, Nov. 13, 2015

“They say [disapprovingly] that we were Cold Warriors. Yes, and a bloody good show, too. A lot of people weren’t Cold Warriors — and so much the worse for them.”

–Robert Conquest

As quoted by Jay Nordlinger in “Robert Conquest — An Appreciation,” republished Sept. 15, 2015; originally publ. Dec. 9, 2002. Brackets in the Nordlinger quote.

Dear Home Secretary – Get Stuffed!


The home secretary, Theresa May, this week invited the biggest US internet firms and British telecoms providers to a meeting to seek their support for the legislation, officially known as the draft communications data bill.

The legislation is expected to include powers that will require firms to collect and store for 12 months the browsing history of users, along with records of voice calls, messages and text services. It might also require firms to give the police and security services access to the data.

But requirements to store browsing history can do nothing if the communications are encrypted, as are an increasing proportion of online services. More and more web surfing is done through a secure connection, represented on the web to the user by the https prefix in a browser address bar.

UK war on encryption will struggle without the US onside

Now don’t get me wrong, the chances are that the Home Secretary (equivalent to the Minister of the Interior / Homeland Security), may be either being really clever or really dumb. Given past experience of politicians I would go for the latter…in fact really, really dumb would be closer to the truth.

The reason why we have switched to more-and-more sites being https:// as opposed to http:// (i.e. unsecured) is more about being perceived to be secure than actually caring about being secure.

I remember having this conversation at my .com business in 1998 and the argument was along the lines of “If we switch from http:// to https:// we can bang on about how secure customer data is based upon it being encrypted rather than the fact we are flogging our customer mailing list to all and sundry for 40p a name”.

Now don’t get me wrong, those were cynical times and I was (and still am) a cynical person, even though I exited the Internet business in Autumn 2001.

Nevertheless, for a small but significant part of the population (i.e. those with > 50% of their brain functioning), they will object to Frau May’s suggestion and indeed will ratchet up their encryption levels accordingly (as in continuously connecting to a non-UK VPN as I and many others already do to bypass such draconian intrusion).

Those who are in the terrorist business already will be using ‘alternative means’ of communication anyway, so the only people likely to be caught out by this are the idiotic self-radicalised Muslims who are looking to bomb their way to paradise and a golden palace filled with virgins (gender unspecified).

I wonder how long it will take for some crowd sourced app site to come up with “F*ckTheSnoopers” app, which generates 10,000 fake URL requests for every real one, whereby actual activity would be drowned out by a dense fog of noise and bullshit.

….because she’s worth it…every penny and every URL…

Cartoon of the Week.

Matt cartoon, November 6

Bacon, Hobbes and a Coke Anyone? : Addendum

Paul added the following comment to his original posting, and requested that it be posted. Happy to oblige. Minor editing to original (typo fixed, unnecessary break in exposition removed); Categories added. –Julie

[Original: Comment to "Bacon, Hobbes and a Coke Anyone?" by Paul Marks
November 2, 2015 at 7:51 pm]

Bentham gets worse over time. He starts off horrified by the violence the American War of Independence and (more) the French Revolution – he then draws the wrong conclusion that talk of “rights” and “natural law” is the cause of this violence (and can not even seem to tell the difference between the private property based American Revolution and the collectivist, Rousseau style, French Revolution) .

Bentham then decided to throw the baby out with the bath water – by rejecting any of natural rights (“nonsense on stilts”) or natural law, just accepting the Hobbesian Positivist definition of law as just the will of the ruler of rulers (despotism – tyranny).

But Bentham remains, sort of, free market for awhile – in that he wants the state to have absolute power (no natural rights or natural law either) but NOT use it much. But then he comes up with more and more statist ideas – ending in the 13 Departments of state that he hoped would control just about everything in a despotism that would have made the Ottoman Empire blush.

But Bentham is not an isolated example – this follower of Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes is the master of the Bowood Circle and the “Westminster Review” crowd. People such as James Mill and his son John Stewart Mill.

The new “liberalism” of endless attacks on the Crown (part of what Bentham claimed to be defending against the French Revolution), endless attacks against the Church of England (the Anglican Church) “Tory” people (many of whom were actually Old Whigs such as Edmund Burke) and so on.

Notice the TRICK (and it is a trick) – freedom has gone from wanting the state to be limited, to wanting “freedom from tradition” and “freedom from God” (“free” thinking as automatic atheism) and the desire for a NEW STATE.

A professional civil service (not people appointed by minister) controlled by “scientific” experts – as with Francis Bacon’s “The New Atlantis”.

An elected government with the vote for everyone – but the elections to be essentially FAKE, as the professional “experts” (people like James Mill and J.S. Mill) would really control everything regardless of who won the election – via a professional Civil Service and “education”.

And the land owners?

The people who the Old Whigs had rightly understood to be the foundation of liberty against the danger of an all mighty state.

The Westminster Review crowd Bentham’s bastard “liberal” children HATED the land owners as the “landed interest” – they wanted “free trade in land”, presented as the end of entails and so on, but really a Trojan Horse for land nationalisation.

For the domination of the STATE over land – as with the Ottoman Empire (and justified by the economics of David Ricardo – refuted by Frank Fetter).

This is the “little” secret behind the “liberalism” of Bentham and the Mills.

It is a “democratic” door way into the all mighty state of the Ottoman Empire – but without Islam.

Instead of Allah it is the state (the “scientific” “liberal” state) that would be worshipped – as long as it was controlled by “enlightened” experts (themselves) serving “the greatest good of the greatest number”.

Yes the above is unfair to the Mills – they (especially J.S. Mill) did have a real believe in freedom of speech and so on.

But they have no philosophy to back it up their belief in freedom of speech – the attempt to of J.S. Mill to reconcile his (sincere) belief in Freedom of Speech with his support for the unlimited New State (with an end to the “landed interest” and so on) is a terrible failure.

It is not “just” a lack of faith in God – it is the lack of any faith in any higher law (one can believe in natural justice without believing in God). Legal Positivism – the idea that the state has no foundational limits and that “law” is just the will of the ruler or rulers.

That is at the heart of the new “liberalism” – and it is what Mill (and modern “liberals”) get from Bentham, and he got from Thomas Bacon and Francis Bacon.

And Bentham (where ever you are) please note – this Legal Positivism is at the heart of the French Revolution you said you opposed.

Rousseau is not so different from Hobbes as people imagine – indeed they share fundamental principles.

The King (or rather despot) of Hobbes is like the “Lawgiver” or “the people” of Rousseau – there are no limits on their power.

The land of the Church (or individuals) can be looted by such a state and given to anyone they feel like giving it to.

Edmund Burke was correct – the “freedom” of the French Revolution was just old slavery in disguise.

The French Revolutionary regime was much the same as the despotism of the Ottoman Empire.

And so is an aspect (a side) of the new “liberalism” today.

And note this:

Religion is not actually the key point here.

For example Martin Luther was sincerely religious – but he embraced determinist philosophy and collectivist politics.

The Anglican position is (or was) fundamentally different – due to the influence of Richard Hooker and others.

And Ayn Rand was a passionate atheist (a mocker of silly religious people – people like me).

Yet Rand was also a passionate defender of humans as beings (agents – not the flesh robots of Martin Luther and Thomas Hobbes) and of natural justice.

The Ethics of Fossil Fuels

Well, dear Reader, from the title you would be justified in wondering whether Fossil Fuels even have ethics. Are FF’s conscious? Can they think? Are they more Platonic or Aristotelian, or perhaps even Hegelian in their metaphysics?

In this little number, Alex Epstein — a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute and the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, a think-tank thinking about energy resources — debates one Bill McKibben, sometimes said to be on the same plane of Enviroloonyism as the Bore.

I present this not because I think you will wish to watch the whole thing (unless you are into masochism), nor because I think Mr. Epstein, be his heart every so rightly placed, is the greatest debater since Socrates or somebody (he could learn a lot from James O’Keefe), but because I am genuinely interested in whether Mr. McKibben’s performance strikes you as it does me. It might take you a mere 10 minutes, or maybe half an hour, of watching and hearing the man. If no one cares to commit his gut reaction to pixels, I will tell you what I made of the McK performance, in a day or two.

Go pour yourself a nice tall chill glass of bathtub gin, neat, and settle in. –Oh, bring your Pet Rock. You may feel the need to be Soothed even beyond the powers of the gin.

Hit the Mohorovičić discontinuity…

… and keep on digging.

Well you do if you are the Daily Fail. This is a screen cap from their frontpage. You might find the juxtaposition of stories interesting…


Now the Mail has a bit of history on this. The “Femail” sidebar is almost entirely about female ‘slebs and who is looking fat or not looking fat, who has a great physique and who doesn’t yet much of the editorial on the left is tirades about all of this sort of thing causing eating disorders and rapes and all manner of horrors.

The Mail’s editorial team either has a sense of irony beyond me or is totally deranged. Possibly both.

Anyway I hope Rihanna paid 5p for her placky-bags. You know to keep George Monbiot happy and Mail readers masturbating enough to generate some form of renewable energy. Or something. God knows! I don’t.

A Partial Response to Paul Marks…

I have honestly never found why Hobbes is considered in the front rank (should I have used a “W” there?) becaue he always struck me as a throw-back to Plato who was such a nasty Berkshire Hunt that he dreamed of the sort of state that would have made the Kims North of the DMZ ejaculate in epic spasms of spunkulatory envy. Plato is still seen as a great in philosophy despite Aristotle completely pwning him (third man and all). And that was BC. So that arguably explains much. The stupidity of humanity over centuries. Time plays a role. Time makes a position (no matter how wrong) defensible.

As to Bacon… Bacon was a Utopian. Regardless of how mad, deranged, insane, evil or bizarre Utopians might be they get let off as sound of heart if not of mind. I would argue that Bacon was sound of neither. The first reason I would suggest is that he was a proto-technocrat. Did he know how to assemble Kipp’s apparatus? My cat could give that a better go. He died from a “chill” (fuck knows what that actually means – I bet he didn’t) but he was a booster of science (like Al Gore) who you wouldn’t trust with a fuckin’ posidrive. I have built things. I wouldn’t trust Bacon to make a round of Geralds. He copped his unfortunate one stuffing a chicken with snow. This was his first, last and only scientific experiment. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

To put it bluntly he was no Oppenheimer (ask any elderly inhabitant of Hiroshima). Ask anyone about Nikola Tesla. Oh, you don’t need to because you have AC power or you wouldn’t be reading this would you? Bacon was a “science booster” who had no idea about science other than shoving snow up a cloaca but to those who can’t wire a plug he is frequently seen as a great man because he was seen as on the side of progress and that is a good thing, obviously. He is the scientific hero for people who think things like “science is good” or “science banishes religion” and think it wondrous and are perfectly happy to have a MacBook but have no fucking idea how it works. There are a hell of a lot of people like that. So they lionize a “scientist” who never did any science because in a way it is easier than to try and read Feynman. I am currently listening to Bon Jovi. A lot easier than learning the guitar isn’t it? Bacon was science for those who wouldn’t know a cubic equation from their own arsehole even if given a mirror and instructions. And that is “technocrats” from Plato to Brabazon all over. People who like the idea of science but know nothing about it. And, yes, those who thing anything can be a science. Real science deals with an attempt at objective reality. It has much to tell us about the Universe but nothing about morals, society, politics, economics. These are different issues. They are conflated frequently but that doesn’t make the people right anymore than a certificate from the LSE can make sine and cosine anything other than in different phase.

And don’t worry dear reader as we enter the winter season I have no plans to stuff a chicken with snow.

I have done questionable things but I am not a complete twat.

If you wanna know a truly great scientist from (very) roughly the same era I suggest you Google “George Green”. I have been to his mill. Now that was a great man. The Science Library of Nottingham University is named for him. That is fitting. It would also be fitting if an aisle in Iceland was named for Bacon.

Bacon, Hobbes and a Coke anyone?

Paul Marks

Yes Paul wrote this not me. I cannot change my bye-line as I don’t know how. Don’t know why he didn’t post it himself… but bye the bye…

It is was well known in the 17th and 18th centuries that Francis "The New Atlantis" Bacon, he who claimed that judges should be lions UNDER the throne – i.e. that the powers of government be unlimited, and his secretary Thomas Hobbes, the determinist and defender of despotism, were arch enemies of liberty.
The great enemy of Sir Francis Bacon was Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, and the great enemy of Thomas Hobbes were the principles of the Common Law in general – Hobbes being "the philosopher" who set himself, in print, against a "student of the Common Law of England".
In "The New Atlantis" Francis Bacon sets out his vision for a collectivist utopia ruled by a technological elite.
Thomas Hobbes does not set out such a vision – but he does, at great length, seek to refute both philosophical and political liberty.
According to Hobbes all choices are predetermined, humans being flesh robots. There is, according to Hobbes, no moral freedom that the state might violate – it simply does not exist. Nor is any resistance to the state attacking other people legitimate – although, as a beast-like conditioned reflex, resistance to the state attacking one’s self (although the "self", the "I", does not, properly speaking, exist to Thomas Hobbes) is to be expected.
All this was well know in the 1600s and 1700s – neither Sir Francis Bacon or Thomas Hobbes really tried to hide it, and both Whig and Tory opposed them. A Tory such as Dr Johnson opposed them just as much as Old Whig such as Edmund Burke did.
Somehow in the 19th century this changed.
From the 19th century onwards it became quite mainstream for "conservatives" and "liberals" to cite, with approval, Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.
For example Maitland, a well thought of Victorian legal writer, blithely cites Thomas Hobbes without seeming to know that to the Common Lawyers of the time, and long afterwards, Thomas Hobbes was the arch enemy. A lawyer of the age of Chief Justice Sir John Holt (he of 1688 and all that) would have been just as opposed to the doctrines of Thomas Hobbes as lawyers of his own life time were.
This blithe citing of Bacon and Hobbes, in political matters, continues today – by many self described conservatives and libertarians.

The conservative Michael Oakeshott at least condemned Francis Bacon for wanting an all-powerful-state, but Oakeshott praised Bacon’s secretary Thomas Hobbes – seemingly unaware that Hobbes also wanted an all-powerful-state (no right, let alone duty, to help other people attacked by a despotic government) and that Hobbes regarded humans as non-beings, as just flesh-robots whose every word and action is predetermined.

The idea that Hobbes is better than Bacon because Francis Bacon wanted an all-powerful-state for economic reasons (to make nature "yield what she has never yet yielded") and Hobbes wanted an all-powerful-state to create "peace" collapses – as Hobbes would do nothing if the all-powerful-state he supports decides to conduct a Francis "The New Atlantis" Bacon style economic policy (technocratic collectivism). As long as the state left Thomas Hobbes, personally, alone he would do nothing (not raise a weapon) if the state decided to burn everyone else alive.

How do I know this? Because Thomas Hobbes made it obvious – again, and again, and again. The Hobbesian "person" (really predetermined flesh-robot by Hobbesian philosophy) would resist if he personally was attacked (not by real choice – but by some sort of conditioned reflex) – but the Hobbesian will not risk their lives to save anyone else from tyranny.

Followers of Thomas Hobbes (or Francis Bacon) are not the sort of person that would support the Glorious Revolution of 1688, or the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. Or the resistance to the Nazis during World War II.  Or the resistance to the Marxists in the Baltic States or the Ukraine (or anywhere) after World War II.

Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes are the arch enemies of liberty – this was, as I said at the start, known in the English speaking world in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was not some secret, special, knowledge – it was a common place, everyone interested in philosophy and politics knew this.

Yet this common knowledge is, somehow, forgotten – and seems to remain forgotten.
The question is – why?
Why was the common knowledge of 17th and 18th centuries, that Bacon and Hobbes were the arch enemies of basic and constitutional liberties, forgotten in the 19th century – or at least became far less well known? Why does it remain largely forgotten – why do self described conservatives and libertarians cite Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes as if they were not evil?
I have thought about this for years – but have failed, I admit that, to come up with a convincing solution to the problem.
The closest I have come is to put the problem back a stage………..
Some of the philosophical ideas of Thomas Hobbes were repackaged in less harsh language by David Hume. And the idea of an all mighty state, that of Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, is pushed by Jeremy Bentham with his denial of natural law and his support for 13 Departments of State covering most aspects of life.
But putting the problem back a stage is not solving the problem.
After all why was David Hume popular in philosophy? And why was Jeremy Bentham popular in politics? And specifically with people who called themselves conservatives or liberals in the late Victorian age – when the Whigs and Tory people of the 18th century had opposed these thinkers?
Also one can admire David Hume without admiring Francis Bacon or Thomas Hobbes – so to say "Mr X was popular so Mr Y was popular" just does not work, it is not a solution to the problem.
As Harold Prichard pointed out 80 years ago, see his essay in "Moral Obligation", even liberal critics of Thomas Hobbes shared the basic assumptions of Thomas Hobbes – for example T.H. Green, the subject of the essay in "Moral Obligation", did.
What had been a small group at the start of the 19th century, basically the Westminster Review crowd, had by the end of the Victorian age become general and mainstream.
Among legal thinkers such as Maitland, philosophers such as T.H. Green, and on and on.
This continues into modern times…….
With great conservative thinkers such as the late M.J. Oakeshott,  writing with admiration about Thomas Hobbes, and self proclaimed Classical Liberals and Libertarians basing their assumptions on Hobbes and his master.
I do not know why.

I am annoyed.

Today I became cognizant of a fact. According to Cheshire East Cuntcil (Note not East Cheshire – it sounds more dynamic or something) I am no longer (on pain of Crucifixion or something) allowed to dispose of bin-liners in the recycling bin. So, I have to pour my (pre-sorted) trash into Mr Silver without the bag which I then chucked in the black bin (destined for land-fill in China). It well bites my pizzle. It does.

At the same time I got a flyer from Cheshire Cuntstabulary which I could put in my window to say I wasn’t at home to Halloween “Trick or Treaters”. Now apart from the abysmal lack of basic psychology this displays (is there anything more likely to get your gaff sprayed in milk products?) in the grand scheme of things this assumes the Cheshire fuzz don’t have any burglaries, rapes or murders on their books. I mean like real crimes and not eight year old kids asking for a fucking lollipop. I don’t mind that. Some crackhead beats me up and makes off with my Thinkpad (I love this Thinkpad) then I want the rozzers to have them hung, drawn and quartered. Screw the coppers! I want to see my IS community support officer. “We provide a full range of services…” “Can I request the removal of the privy member?” “All part of the service but why not go for the deluxe package sir? It’ll only cost an extra twenty pounds sir and this month we include a complementary disemboweling”*.

*I am of largely of Irish and Norwegian ancestry. Way back. Anyway one of my ancestors did a very unpleasant thing to another of my ancestors outside of Dublin. The Viking chief was captured, his belly slit (pay attention IS!) and made to walk round a tree slowly unwinding his bowels round it. They loved the craic back then. I am of course (regardless of the DNA) English so I don’t do that sort of thing. Much.

Can you guess?

The best team sport I was good at at school?

And (maybe) why?

Rotten to the Core.

I found this completely by accident. This was recorded for BBC Radio 1 in 1978 and never broadcast. It only came to surface in 2013. Draw your own conclusions…

By their fruits, shall you know them

An Inconvenient Truth

In a series of recent posts on his blog, Paul Homewood has been meticulously plotting the Met Office’s predictions against its own recorded data.

In one, titled “Met Office forecasts contain a warming bias”, he compared all its running three-monthly forecasts for the first nine months of 2015, made on the basis of “observations, several numerical models and expert judgement”, with what actually happened.

Seven months this year, they told us, would be hotter than usual. In fact, six of the nine months were cooler than normal, and October looks like being yet another botched call.

Against its frequent claims that we can expect “a general increase in summer temperatures” thanks to “human influence on climate”, the Met Office’s own data show that, since 2006, summers have on average become cooler.

Met Office shown to be wrong by its own data

For myself, I remain unsurprised, for this is exactly what happens when once scientific organisations are captured by ideology and it doesn’t matter whether that ideology is political (as illustrated by the Nazi and Soviet scientific establishments) or the modern day ideology of “the hockey stick delusion”.

The very moment that you allow bias to influence the outcome of what is supposedly a scientific analysis, then you become no different than the thousands of others who have corrupted themselves and their work to gain favour, influence and funding.

It’s a form of graft. It ain’t new and it ain’t funny.

Quote of the Week.

You heard it here. “Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2”. To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards the End Times. If that isn’t good news I don’t know what is. You don’t get to stave off Armageddon every day.

Dr Patrick Moore.

Yes this gent was one of the founders of Greenpeace, but is a scientist (which is more than can be said for the current activists) and the article is a long one, but one of the sanest, most concise and convincing pieces I have ever read on “Global Warming”.

The Cross I Bear.

I was born at the RVI, Newcastle in 1973. I am a life-long fan of Newcastle United.

Newcastle United started in the C19th as a Catholic club (this is long forgotten – there is no Rangers/Celtic antiquities in England) I only point it out because of the Catholic tradition of the mortification of the flesh. The last time the Magpies won the league was in 1927. My late Granddad was 4. The last time we won anything was in 1969. I was minus 4. It’s like I have been continually drinking warm monkey piss for 42 years. A few years back… Well… I moved to Manchester. I suppose I could have shifted my allegiance but no! Once a Geordie… There is something almost Biblical about this and I am thinking Job here.

From here. Read the whole thing. I was born smart, have a loving family and wife (and cat). I have been lucky in most stuff. Not in my team. It is existential… This amused me most…

“Aye, I was there when we won the Fairs Cup in ’69,” says Colin, recalling Newcastle’s last major triumph, in the predecessor to the Uefa Cup. A month later, Colin witnessed another miracle, when man first set foot on the moon.

Quite frankly, the next time Newcastle win anything forget the moon! I’ll be by the methane seas of Titan.

Newcastle are currently bottom of the Premiership. We are going down with the Mackems. To call it a disgrace is like calling Islamic State a paradigm of religious tolerance.

So, I started watching Rugby Union. I don’t have much luck do I?


I once saw XH558. She (all ‘planes are “hers”) at Southport Airshow.

This is how it happened. I was sitting on the beach and this thing came in stage right. It was fucking utterly awesome. I have seen many flying machines but this was something else. At the left end of the beach it stood on it’s tail and lit the fires and went vertical. I can still feel the heat of the four Rolls Royce Olympus Turbojets. The very fire of the Gods. It is on my top ten list along with Angel Falls in Georgia, USA, the Caldera of Santorini, Greece, at dawn, the Tennessee River in er… Tennessee, the birth place of Aphrodite in Cyprus, The Blue Mosque in Istanbul, this Thinkpad, a pair of Phantoms supersonic over Bamburgh Beach, the buses of Malta and some other things. Most recently the Glasgow Sharmanka Kinetic Theatre. I have seen things on three continents. Wondrous things. But that ‘plane…

It was emotional. I have seen flying things. I have seen Enola Gay (static display and surrounded by plexiglass to prevent numpties damaging it – I had to go to Virginia for that). The Vulcan was something else mind. So low, so fast, so agile.

It made a tour of the North West on Saturday. A goodbye tour. I shall never see it fly again and nor shall you. For shame! It was built just up the road from me in Stockport. AVRO no longer exists. Oh, Hell as a kid I got onto, in Newcastle, my town of birth, HMS Illustrious which was on a courtesy visit to it’s home port on the Tyne. Now that was at Swan Hunter. I think the Neptune Yard. All gone so many years ago.

So very sad.

But what is sadder is this…

I have a thing. I am good at maths. Very good. This means I am good at physics and not bad with computers. But I am smart enough to know my limits. I am utterly pantage with languages. My wife doesn’t (shame!) know dy/dx of sin(x) = cos(x) but she does know what a gerund is. What the fuck is a gerund anyway? And how come people get interested in the human and not the universal? Maths is the universal. It is so true it is scary.

Now you either see the beauty or you don’t. Of course there are also Maxwell’s Equations. And the equations of Thermo-D. “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways!” Do you have any idea how many accessible microstates exist for a can of Coke at 300K? It’s a lot. And this is all true.

So, I know about this stuff. Yes, but as I hinted, there are shed-loads I know nothing about. I also know about flight. Why? Well I know aerodynamics and things. I also love ‘planes. I have loved them since before I could read. I know ‘planes. Lads my age had posters of Kylie. I had an F-15 on the wall. I’d love to fly the F-15. What I’d like to do with Ms Minogue is a matter between her me and the wallpaper.

So, there are things I know about and things I couldn’t pretend to (though I do understand Kylie – I just can’ get her out of my head – not in that frock anyway). So when XH558 got stricken from the list I was annoyed. And then I was mental when I read this…

This is from the Daily Fail…

Britons given a final chance to see an icon of the skies as the Vulcan fighter jet begins its farewell tour of the nation.

I do know about aircraft and that ain’t a “fighter”. That was designed to slam nuclear weapons at Moscow. Yes, it was that awesome. And it still was when I saw it. It was awesome when a Vulcan did Operation Blackbuck. At the time the longest bombing raid ever. Subsequently the USAF has beaten that with B-1s, B-2s and the very old soldier the B-52 (I read an interview in The Times with a B-52 pilot whose Grand-father was also a B-52 pilot – when it finally quits the youngest airframes will be 80 years old. It has generally been used against goat-molestering Qu’ran botherers recently (Commies before). Odd thing about the 2 billion dollar B-2 is that nobody at the USAF or Northrop-Grumman thought to include a bed. So, for 36 hour missions, the aircrew installed a chaise longue for a bit of a kip. And this was to bomb the utter wrecks who couldn’t even conceive of a stealth bomber. I mean these were folks who banned the flying of kites.

You see I know my limits. I know a lot about various stuff. I also know there are many things I know little about. So the retirement really narks.

And calling the ‘plane a fighter just adds pignorence to injury. Thanks Daily Fail.

%d bloggers like this: