Monday, 31 December 2007

And a Happy New Year to you!

Tacitus described the Britons (for 'tis an older description than "English") as a hard drinking people, yet he compares the liberty they once enjoyed to the oppression of Rome.

solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.*
Nothing has changed, and despite the exhortations, I urge you to go out and drink more than the one and a half glasses of wine that our New Labour masters deem acceptable. We are not soft, moderate wine-drinking southern Europeans who'd rather allow their lords to decide what is civilised; we are pugnacious northern Europeans schooled in individual liberty for two and a half millennia. Though our European masters may think that they're better than us, we know who's right. Most of us will drink far more than is prudent tonight. Why? Because it's fun, and we know it is! So stick two fingers in the air in the General Direction of that joyless fucker, Brown as he broods in his bunker with his health-fascist puritan myrmidons as they drink their festive glass of babycham, and shout
Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset**
Try and avoid throwing up, which is uncivilised, the only excuse for which is being 14 and still working out how much you can take, but revel the night away, safe in the knowledge that the scientific advice on safe drinking levels was plucked out of thin air, by some bloodless wimp who cannot hold his beer. A good piss-up once in a while does you no harm.

Have a good time, and make sure you have bacon and eggs for the morning, despite the fact that the cunts probably think that it's too fattening.

*They create a Desert and call it 'peace'

Because they didn't know better, they called it 'civilization,' when it was part of their slavery

Thursday, 27 December 2007

Public Transport is Rubbish.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a lovely place. It is inhabited by friendly people (unless you live in that London, where utter arseholes seem to form the majority). One could almost consider it to be a paradise... until you try to get anywhere. This transport misery reaches a peak in late December, where the entire public transport infrastructure shuts down.

It is for this reason that despite the fuel price, people will continue to drive cars, whatever the eco-weenies think, public transport simply isn't an option for most people. Public transport, as I've pointed out before is simply nasty. If it was efficient and Nasty, it may be an option, but it is Nasty, smelly and full of horrid people, some of whom try to talk to you, none of whom are pretty, and doesn't even get you there on time.

Lefties fetishise public transport, because they live dreary lives, they think everyone else ought to as well. Though they may believe buses and trains to be more environmentally friendly, I consider the noise of a buses engine to be far more offensive than the purr of a sensibly driven petrol car. You can taste the fumes from the bus, but not the car, which is subject to much stricter noise and emissions regulations. Buses hog the road and slow everyone down. They are far more dangerous to cyclists. And apart from a few routes, where they operate to capacity, they are no more carbon efficient than a car, nor are trains - especially with the new, heavier safer carriages. The environment is the excuse lefties give for pressuring the middle classes to subsidise a service they don't use. It is window dressing for one of the last bastions of Union power. The control that trots like Bob Crow have over the economy using the levers of frustrating peoples' attempts to get into work is staggering. It is this trot - fantasy of political power existing at the point of production which has ensured its survival into the modern age, when the market would have killed it off years ago.

This morning I got up, got into my car and travelled 45 or so miles to work from my Grandma's where I had been enjoying a family Christmas. This took a little less than an hour, and I was able to listen to lefties' drivel on radio 4 whilst getting to the office. Because Gordon Brown is a cunt, I had to burn approximately £1.10 worth of fuel, and pay another £4.40 in tax for the pleasure. Even when you factor in depreciation and apportion insurance the total cost doesn't come to more than £10 or so.

Shall we attempt the same journey by public transport? I've checked and the quickest route would take something like four and a half hours (at least) and would be impossible on a weekend. It costs over 3 times as much, if I book the journey several weeks in advance, or 5 times as much if I buy the ticket in the morning of travel, and that's before having my taxes raided to subsidise it.

Public transport is shit, which is why it is only half full of ruined people who have no choice. It is almost certainly why Londoners are so obnoxious. Remove all subsidies from the sector, watch it sink. If you live in that London, buy a bike.

Simple policies for a happy Britain.

Wednesday, 26 December 2007

What a glorious sight

A seasonal 'Fuck you' to our new labour masters.

Monday, 24 December 2007

More Yuletide Cheer!

I've been tagged by the Devil to reveal 8 for 2008 - a list of 8 things I'd like to see happen (but that probably won't).

  1. I would like the job to continue its upward progress - I want an Aston Martin by the close of the year!
  2. Tax Cuts. Big ones...
  3. England to win a Grand Slam.
  4. FTSE 100 to break 7,000
  5. Peace and Harmony to reign everywhere, except the Labour party.
  6. Somebody to offer me a chance to get paid for writing the blog...
  7. I would like to manage to go a whole year without being dumped by Jessica
  8. Gordon hanging on by the tips of his fingers to the leadership of his party as his "leadership" reaches rock bottom. Opposition is already coalescing around that jug-eared cunt, Charles Clarke who I'd like to see launch a motion of no confidence in the goblin king. The damage such deep, pubic and abiding splits would do to the labour movement would be a joy to behold. I would like to see the wound superating for at least 2 years prior to the antibiotic of an election being administered. Hopefully the Labour party will have developed the political equivalent of terminal septicaemia and gangrene by then. As you can see, I'm full of the spirit of the season, unless you're a Labour politician, in which case you can fuck off and die.
Merry Christmas! As a present I tag... no-one! feel free to take it up if you're so minded!

Sunday, 23 December 2007

Yuletide cheer!

Friday Saturday* was the shortest day, the festival of which the tedious parasitic levantine creed which dominated our society for 1378 years, commandeered and called "Christmas". So... it gets less dark and miserable in the mornings and a little less dark and miserable on the way home from here, and I am raising a glass of Bushmills in celebration. Before long I'll be seeing proper daylight again.

It is the time of year where one is supposed to wish all and sundry good cheer. There are some exceptions, on whom I wish something nasty like this, or this, but if you're a decent sort, and not a member of the Zanu Labour cabinet who's been busying himself with introducing internment fort the crime of "being in possession of a beard in public with intent to be Muslim", then Merry Christmas! May your new year be happy and prosperous.

I'm in work on Christmas eve, so this may yet not be the last post prior . Markets do not crash on their own, you know. I will take the trouble to make some Christmas predictions for 2008.

  1. Gordon Brown will survive the year as PM. Alas.
  2. England will continue to be shit at all major sports
  3. The Tories will consolidate and extend their poll lead.
  4. The FTSE 100 will break 7000
  5. Jacqui Smith will not be Home secretary this time next year.
  6. A Very British Dude will break into the Technoranki top 25
  7. Northampton Saints will move up to the premiership, and make a good start.
  8. I will win the scene. The relevant people know what this means.
  9. I will avoid arrest and imprisonment for another year
  10. Can I leave number 10 to you....?
*See Comments

Friday, 21 December 2007

Freedom is an a priori good

Chris Dillow suggests that freedom doesn't make us happy. That may be the case, but we know and overmighty interventionist state actively makes us miserable and dead, and more importantly denies us the power to do anything about it. So when he says as an aside

"Perhaps [Freedom's] value is intrinsic, not consequentialist",
he's, in fact, hit on one of the differences between left and right, and in this, as most things we're right, and he is, broadly, wrong.

We evolved as hunter gatherers, and any remove from this is makes us progressively more miserable. But the fact is, if you're free, you can decide like chubby survivalist Ray Mears to go back to the woods. Or like me, you can become self employed and live in a rural area. Or you can enjoy the warm, suffocating embrace of your employer or the welfare state and wonder why you're miserable for your entire life. It is up to you to pursue your own happiness as you see fit. Some are happy, some are sad. Some are rich and some are poor. Not my problem. The moment the state tries to do anything about it, you'll be either more poor, more miserable or more dead: that much is guaranteed.

Desktop Meme

I've been tagged as a "technically literate" blogger to reveal my desktop by the Devil and The Whiskey Priest. I'm technically literate in the same way someone whose lips move as their finger moves along the line whilst reading The Sun is literate, but never mind...

Here it is. No porn, no guns, just a nice picture of Stonehenge.

I couldn't get one from the '80s with the police beating up hippies.

I tag Keatonmask, Jessica, Liberty's Requiem, and Miss Smack to show us theirs...

Thursday, 20 December 2007

Clegg Doesn't do God

I'd resolved to ignore the Liberal Democrats, but this got me thinking. Nick Clegg, when asked whether he believed in God said "no...." (via) he panicked hedging that with a "...but some of my best friends do..."

He is the first serious politician in the developed world (and in that he leads Britain's Third party, I think he qualifies as "serious", just) to be openly atheist. Here is where it gets interesting because we atheists have long dealt with the chauvinism of the faithful. This isn't overt or sinister, but in politics people look to the moral character of their potential leaders, and for religious people, that is entirely bound up in faith. Indeed one of the principle arguments of the faithful is "how can you know what is good without faith?".

In Iraq, soldiers are advised to declare a religion if captured: the militias can understand that you are a Christian or even a Jew or Hindu. Atheism, however is beyond their ken and beyond the pale. God-bothering voters, particularly in America have the same view. Here thankfully, as Alastair Campbell said, "we do not do God", but those of a religious bent feel more comfortable trusting someone who came to their moral standpoint in the same way.

What will be interesting is how this plays. It is certainly being portrayed as either a Gamble or Naive in today's papers. I hope it works for him, I really do. Perhaps then we can have politicians being honest on the issue. I cannot believe that an educated and intelligent group of people like the house of commons (despite appearances) undoubtedly is has so few atheists. Perhaps Cleggy will flush some more from the covert.

As an Atheist, I care little about people's faith. "God" as a personification of "good" I can cope with. Mention "Jesus" however and you're a nutter. I am thankful that we exiled our religious loons to a moral cess-pit in the 1620's, and got on with having a good time.

Well done Cleggy and may there be more like you! Now drop the Federasty and Proportional representation and you have my vote.

Wednesday, 19 December 2007

Mental Gymnastics

I've been accused of performing mental gymnastics over party funding: What's the difference between the Labour funding row and the Tories'?

Well here goes: They're chalk and cheese:

  1. They're Labour's rules which are being broken - rules which were put in place in part to scupper the funding arrangements of two major donors to opposition parties.
  2. Labour have deliberately tried to circumvent these rules, in the case of £660,000 from Abrahams when senior officials and probably the party leadership too, clearly knew that money did not ultimately come from those appearing on the register of donors.
  3. The new rules on domicile were clearly written for party political gain with Ashcroft and another anti-Labour figure in mind. Ashcroft has brought, or is bringing his domicile onshore, and the origin of his money is clear....
  4. Unlike the Unions who are laundering taxpayers cash for the Labour Party. If this isn't corruption, I don't know what is.
  5. Scale: Labour are in hoc to the tune of £660,000. The Tories are guilty of accepting about £21,000 of inadmissible donations, the woolies about £25,000
  6. It's deliberate attempts to mislead the public which are causing the media storm rather than David Cameron or Wendy Alexander's oversight However...
  7. Wendy Alexander, like the Labour party in general was caught by the media, Cameron's constituency on the other hand, voluntarily owned up before the scandal broke.
Therefore if you think that £7,000 makes the Tories as sleazy as labour then you're an idiot.

Saturday, 15 December 2007

Another Nail in The Coffin of British Superiority

One of the reasons that British People can legitimately look down their noses at the Americans is that awful as our political leadership certainly is, they do not demean themselves by doing things like this:

Oh. Hang on... (5.24)


Friday, 14 December 2007

Futureology and the Death of the Labour Movement (Also Known as Wishful Thinking)

I think we've got the measure of the man. Cowardly, bullying, incompetent and fiscally illiterate. Gordon Brown is comfortably the worst PM this country has ever endured. That much is uncontroversial. So what's going to happen next?

Look at the pressure his ministers are under: Wendy Alexander, Peter "the orange slug" Hain and Harperson are up to their necks in ordure surrounding party funding, only just providing support to keep the One-eyed Presbyterian thief out of the sewage. If you still think Gordon knew nothing, you'll believe a Labour promise to hold a referendum (on that, more later). These two women and one gastropod are all that stands between Gordon and knacker of the Yard. If they go, he goes.

The Badger-faced sock puppet is under pressure over Northern Rock and the missing discs and it appears likely that he's been less than truthful with parliament over both issues. None of these are his fault, but he'll carry the can for the disasters on behalf of their architect. The economy is about to roll over and house prices are likely to fall but there is no way he can borrow out of trouble, because Cyclops has already spent everything in the piggy bank while the going was good, before delivering a hospital pass to his minion ahead of a recession. If this recession is deep and nasty, there is one person who should cop the blame.

The Home Secretary has screwed up the police due to her own incompetence. She is also currently presiding over a prison system in meltdown, principally due a decade of underfunding at the treasury's behest, whilst you know who was in charge. This despite introducing a new law every day they've been in power. Immigrants swarm to this country, and though I don't care, many people do and it is consistently put at the top of the list of things Labour have screwed up.

Likewise Des "two jobs" Brown, quite the most useless Defence minister in history, is presiding over a grotesquely overstretched military which is only avoiding catastrophe due to the tireless 24/7 efforts of soldiers in Iraqistan, many of whom are on their third or fourth tour. With Kosovo about to blow up again this is only going to get worse. They are using worn out kit, in insufficient numbers and taking the weight off our unreliable allies, who refuse to fight. When this goes wrong, many soldiers will die, and it is a decade of treasury meanness whilst the one-eyed thief was in charge which will be the root cause, though no doubt some middle ranking staff officer will take the blame (and probably willingly too, as he'll be a Gentleman), when the body bags of 19 year-old soldiers come home in large numbers.

The benefits system is a mess, principally due to Brownian meddling and complexity, state "education" is crap because of decades of leftist dogma leading to functional illiteracy amongst 20% of the population. The less said about the NH"S", the better.

Every major department of state is approaching melt-down and disaster, or is already there. Barring a military disaster or some legal meat from the police investigations, nothing is likely to be fatal to the Government. Brown's response will be to hunker down in his bunker, throwing things at his "garden girls" for another two years and relying for information on toadies like the hilarious bulbous-eyed frog, Ed "balls" Balls. Meanwhile the Labour back-benchers and allies who so gleefully put him in place realise that he's not the man they thought he was; he is, in fact the man we thought he was*. Their wail of loss and anguish is still building, though they will remain too cowardly to defenestrate their fuhrer, who will remain the arbiter of their careers for the next two years. I think we can rule out a coup from within Zanu Labour 'till after the election. But the damage done to the Party will be real and deep.

Meanwhile we outside Westminster witness the disgusting breech of trust in the failure to hold a referendum on the Treaty Constitution, and then Gordon's slippery attempts to distance himself from the signing. This, of all the issues outlined above demonstrates most clearly what is wrong with the man: Unlike his predecessor, he cannot even lie with style and his "moral compass" points to the directly to the Sun.

Out in the country we little people will stare in resigned revulsion at the mendacity and incompetence of the ruling masters. I will characterise the Labour project thus: An interventionist state, with high taxes funding public provision of services, tight regulation of industry and a puritanical social agenda which seeks to use the law to better people's behaviour. This has demonstrably failed in every aspect. And here is where I get wishful: can this be the high point of the Labour project? Are we witnessing the last throw of the socialist dice?

Let me elaborate: The nanny state has not improved behaviour, indeed quite the obverse. People are no-longer responsible for their actions and behave accordingly, and thanks to an overgenerous welfare state, there's no consequences for catastrophically fucking-up your life. There is no way that the public services could have been funded any more generously in the last decade - we serfs have endured the biggest rise in peace-time taxation in British history, yet The NHS is getting more fucked by the day as C. Difficile and MRSA take their toll. Even simple stuff is going to hell in a handbasket: the roads are broken and the stinky bins are emptied every other week. The only people to benefit from this catastrophe are the Labour client state of public sector unions and the professional benefits recipient.

So people are starting, tentatively to call for freedom and tax cuts witness the euphoria with which the Inheritance tax policy of the Tory conference was greeted. The old "Tory service cuts" argument won't wash any more. If you can fire-hose money at the NHS for no demonstrable improvement, then you may be able to achieve the same service cheaper... Perhaps the logic will finally seep in that the state is incompetent and that provision should be left to the private sector. The Tories are likely to be timid in their first term, just as St. Margaret of Thatcher was, but they'll see which way the wind will blow.

But this is not the reason for the imminent death of the Labour movement: They are going to have to find a new man in a couple of years after the Goblin King loses the next election. To whom are they going to turn? A Lurch to the left under a Cruddas or his ilk will hardly reassure an electorate sick with Tax n' spend, and what about an oily, discredited opportunist like Straw? Let's just laugh at the prospect of a Miliband or a Balls led Labour party.

How are they going to arrest the decline in their post-industrial heartlands where the Liberal Democrats are starting to develop a base? What about Scotland - could the SNP gain seats from Labour there, even if people do not vote "yes" to independence in any upcoming referendum? In short, have Labour made such a hash of government that a further two years could seriously jeopardise their hegemony in the North of England and Scotland? There is even the prospect of a Tory revival in Wales.

Could the implosion in the Labour party following a catastrophic defeat be worse than that which happened to the Tories after 1997? Could this then leave them vulnerable to the other Left of Centre parties? The Tories faced no opposition on the right and were given a decade to sort themselves out. Will the Liberal Democrats be that Generous? Can they and others collectively push The Labour Party into third place, and into a slow, lingering death. God how I hope so....

Thursday, 13 December 2007

Jacqui Smith MUST GO.

The police, for whom I hold no candle, have passed a motion of no confidence in the Home secretary and are balloting their members whether they should seek the right to strike. This is second only to a mutiny by the Army* as an indication of how catastrophically the government has fucked up.

As a consequentialist libertarian, I believe that the police is one of the few areas where government has a role, albeit a limited one. It is the decade of abuse of the role of the police by this Government, giving them far too much power, whilst removing the individual officer's discretion which has turned the police into a job for petty-minded officious bullies. The police themselves are unhappy as a result. They are aware of their falling status in society as a result of their failure to tackle the fear of crime. They are dimly aware of how resented things like speed cameras are by much of the population, yet persist in policing to their targets for extortion, diversity and sanction-detection, whilst ignoring burglary as too much like hard work. Any pretence at beat policing, which deters crime and reassures the public, has been abandoned. This is because they are led by political appointees, who are awful, and only interested in securing good headlines for the shower of shits the idiotic voters of this country have voted in as a "Government".

With this backdrop, the Police asked for a pay rise, the Governments offer was rejected, it went to arbitration. An award of 2.5% was the result, but the government decided that it should not be backdated to September, as is normal when arbitration is undertaken. This has the effect of dropping the award to 1.9%, so that the government can say it was not breeching its public sector wages rule, brought in to tackle inflation. This is seen by the police as negotiating in bad faith and they're right.

What sums are we taking about? Well the salary of a Constable of about 5 years service (which I'm guessing to be about average) is £28,029, or £2335.75 per month, which 'aint bad as the police will readily admit. After the pay rise this rises by £58.39, so 4 months pay is about £233.58 per officer. This is not about the money therefore, at least from the Individual officers point of view. There are somewhere north of 141,000 pigs in the country, so the government saved the grand total of £33 million. This is a pittance for the damage to police morale that such shabby treatment creates. Who's on the receiving end of police resentment? Joe public - in the form of sloppy police work and petty, vindictive policing.

What is different between the police and the other public sector wage deals, which have been more generous? The police cannot strike. This pay deal is therefore what it seems: the actions of a dishonourable bully. Jacqui Smith has demonstrated her unfitness for high office. As a former teacher, just what the fuck does she know about conducting wage deals? Why was she so badly advised? and why, now it obvious that she is being hung out to dry by the one-eyed thief, does she not salvage a scrap of dignity and resign?

*A mutiny by the Navy, on the other hand is reasonably common...

Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Ricky "the Hitman" Hatton

The other thing I watched over the weekend was the Hatton vs. Mayweather fight, and mighty disappointed I was too with the result. I am a fan of the fight game, and have stepped into the ring myself in the past: 3 fights, 3 losses, 2 by knockout, the first of these, in the first 10 seconds - I was shit. Hatton deserves a lot of credit, but Mayweather is pure class as well as being one of the least likeable people I think I have ever seen in the ring (and I am including Tyson in that). I was going to review it, but keatonmask has summed up my thoughts nicely. Go read.

We are a Worthless, Servile Population.

Imitation Samurai swords are to be banned after a "spate" of (meaning a couple of well-publicised) attacks using them. Why? What about axes - surely allowed for anyone with a log-pile or wood in the garden. Hammers - vital for DIY. Kitchen Knives - I bet there are more killings with a foot-long chef's knife than ever happen with swords.

This is ridiculous. ACPO, the illiberal jack-booted shits that they are "welcome" the home office's move, whilst acknowledging that the weapons are "rare" suggested that it is vital to "tackle the scourge of violent crime". Genuine swords "of interest to collectors and enthusiasts" are to escape the ban. So, to put this in English rather than Pig-speak: really well-made weapons of tempered steel with full tangs are allowed, whereas soft steel, stub tang weapons which will break if they hit anything hard are to be banned. A rich man, wanting a sword for his wall can get the real thing. A less wealthy chap, wanting the same effect is not allowed to do so. Presumably its up to you to prove the difference, another nail in the coffin of "innocent until proven guilty".

What we are seeing in Britain is the total disarming of the population - both physically and temperamentally. Everyone is to look to the state for all security: financial, physical and moral, and the state responds by banning anything which might be dangerous. The result is a population who cannot do anything unless it is specifically allowed by the state - servility without totalitarianism. Even pen-knives are barely allowed. Why should one have to justify carrying a leatherman or Swiss army knife? They are useful for anything from peeling an orange to fiddling with the back of a computer, and shouldn't require justification. The fact is it is not what you're carrying, but what you want to do with it that matters. Anything can become a weapon, and I would rather be carrying (for example) 3' of scaffolding pole than a 4" knife were I in a ruck. A sledge-hammer would be more use than an imitation samurai sword. No-one is seriously suggesting banning the sale of kitchen knives, axes, hammers, or crowbars... are they?

The Daily Mail tendency will ask "why do you want an imitation sword?" and feel a bit safer because "dangerous" weapons have been "taken off the streets". But just as with the total banning of firearms, this is not the case. The police have a vested interest in creating a servile population without the will or tools to resist them, and generating laws with which they can arrest more or less anyone they feel like. Then they can piss about policing to their tractor production targets whist presiding over a country where burglary is, to all intents an purposes, legal. The people who are minded to commit crimes will carry whatever tools they need for the job, leaving innocent people to be arrested for carrying starting pistols, pen-knives, BB-guns, and sporting equipment, or having curios hanging on the wall.

Where does this leave my 6' Masai lion spear, or Travelgall's Fijian war-hammer? Are we not allowed to sell them on e-bay, should future Girlfriends decide that they form no part of their interior design concept? The generally harmless Live action role-play community will be at risk of this bullying legislation, as are the people who sell them what they need to dress up as warriors and pretend to quest. The generally law-abiding are easier collars than career crooks. First they come for the Target shooters, and I did not speak up, because I am not a Target-shooter. Then they came for the Role-Players...

Make no bones about it, this is giving police more power to invade the home, arrest people at will going about what should be legal business or recreation, without making one iota of difference to the violent crime statistics. The worthless, servile cunts this kind of Gesture legislation is aimed to please do not deserve the free society to which we are hanging on by the tips of our fingers.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

How to Travel With Children

The parents of the little girl caught in the Baggage handling system in Manchester Airport may claim the incident to be an unfortunate accident, but we all know they were close to stumbling on the correct way to travel with children: Check 'em in as hold baggage.

The Golden Compass

Golden Shower more like.

Seriously. This was a mega-budget blockbuster based on a popular and acclaimed novel by Philip Pullman, from the company who brought you the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The effects were gorgeous and the movie is visually stunning. It has James Bond and Gandalf in it as well as a host of other theatrical knights, and all I could think whilst watching it was
"is this actually the worst film I have ever seen?"
It certainly comes close.

Transformers was shit, but at least it was just an explosion-fest and merely failed to be 2 1/2 hours of fun. This movie was trying hard... SO hard to be an epic, which just made it more laughable when it crashed and burned - like watching teenage poetry. It was as if the script was penned, in the absence of a professional scriptwriters by the remedial English class of Britain's sinkiest inner-city Comprehensive. There was far too much information to get across to the audience - an entire mythology, which is either done subtly or not at all if you want to be successful. Here great dollops of back-story were delivered with all the grace and ease of a 9lb baby, home birthed by a first-time mother.

Despite this effort, I didn't realise, with my finely tuned political and religious antenna that this was an anti-clerical story. The movie therefore missed the point of the book. Read this review, then the book and don't go and see this dog-turd of a film.

Wednesday, 5 December 2007

Uranus Experiment

What I fail to understand is how a normally diligent blogger could mention this fact that both American and Russian scientists have experimented with human sexuality in space (by watching humans indulging in sexuality in space - videos apparently exist, but aren't available ), without mentioning Private's 1999 3-part pornographic masterpiece, The Uranus Experiment, which was notable for the world's first zero gravity pop-shot ever to be committed to celluloid. Life imitating art perhaps?

Daily Politics

I'm thoroughly enjoying watching Hazel Blears' shit-eating grin as she's thoroughly skewered by Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics over party funding.


A while ago, the Chav promised socialism or death. Wrong conjunction: It's Socialism and death.

Monday, 3 December 2007

The Libertarian Party

Ian Parker Joseph has Launched the Libertarian Party over at LibUK with a frankly pathetic attack on David Cameron whose recent speech to the ODS in Prague he admits was pretty good.

Fine sentiments Mr Cameron, well chosen words Mr Cameron. Unfortunately I don't believe you.
Apparently this speech "sickened" Parker Joseph because David Cameron is "only pretending to be a Libertarian". Well, I've news for you, Ian, He isn't pretending to be a Libertarian - he leads something called "The Conservative Party", and as such if he's pretending to be anything, it's a Conservative.

Stop the press: This Man's a Tory!

He is what he seems: A centrist, Socially Liberal Conservative. This frustrates social Conservatives, who accuse him of being a Liberal and Libertarians who think they own the soul of the Tory Party and want him to be radical. Some Libertarians have gone so far in this belief that they act like spiteful jilted lovers, who are full of vindictive bile at the former finance who left them for an heiress. In this they are just like the pathetic sub-BNP rabble of UKIP. The plaintive wail of betrayal and loss is palpable, and a certain breed of Libertarian cannot bear to see the Tory party doing well... the electorate is the new lover and she isn't good enough, they sob into their well-thumbed and semen stained copies of Hayek. "If only she'd see it.... he doesn't really love her"

The truth is Libertarianism just doesn't wash with the electorate anywhere, let alone the UK. All a political party, especially one with a deep philosophical core is likely to be is a sink for other people's money. There will be endless splits between the purists and the realists. The Libertarian Party will be a forum for sterile debate, just like modern Trots, who argue about the finer points of revolutionary theory, without ever doing anything. Fuck that.

The fact is, The Tory party has a good track record of shrinking the state, even under Major. David Cameron will be no different. As a Libertarian I support the Tory party because they are the closest to my beliefs that are likely to achieve power soon enough to make a difference for me. I try to drag my party the right way, but accept that compromise is a necessary part of Politics. The Art of the Possible. I'm sorry Ian, The Libertarian Party is not going to be a "new force for British Politics", much as I would love them to be.

Idealogical purity is for adolescents.

Democracy in Action

Hugo Chavez has failed in his bid to become a dictator by elective means. The big question is will he respect the vote? He certainly conceded gracefully enough, but his rhetoric suggests otherwise. The reforms had failed "for now", he said.

Saturday, 1 December 2007

Democracy in Action?

Words cannot describe the loathing I feel for the signatories to this letter. (via)

We believe that the lives of millions of Venezuelans have been transformed by the progressive social and democratic policies of Hugo Chávez's government. Extreme poverty has been halved, illiteracy nearly eliminated, participation in education has more than doubled and free basic healthcare extended to nearly 20 million people. Unemployment has fallen to a historic low.
No mention of food shortages as a result of economic policies straight out of the soviet book? Food shotages in a petrostate with oil at $90 a barrel? Short term unemployment has been bought at the cost of the long-term wrecking of the economy. When will the left realise that state planning and price controls SIMPLY DON'T WORK?
The constitution introduced by President Chávez, approved by Venezuelans in a popular referendum, is one of the most democratic in the world and enshrines rights of previously excluded and minority groups. An emphasis on social inclusion has improved the position of women and Venezuela's black, mixed-race and indigenous majority.
OK, but in a situation where the government control all the mass media and has armed militais roaming the streets. But that's ok, because there's a token Black face or two in government. Down with whitey!
Venezuela's government has directly promoted participatory democracy through community councils, urban land committees and other local bodies.
Stuffed with Chavez placemen. What's wrong with parliament and local democracy? Oh yes. The opposition boycotted the elections, because of Chavez's abuse of his dominant media position. That's it. They too are stuffed with Chavistas, and have the simple purpose of putting Chavez's decrees into effect, and would no more provide legitimacy than Stalin's Duma.
President Chávez's sweeping social, political and economic agenda, has been endorsed by Venezuelans in 11 democratic elections that have been consistently judged free and fair by international observers. Tomorrow the Venezuelan people will once again be called on to vote on a series of reforms to the 1999 constitution proposed by President Chávez.Venezuela is one of the few countries in the world where both the constitution and any revisions to it must be approved by a majority of citizens in a national referendum. We call on the international community to respect the outcome of the coming referendum and support the sovereign and democratic right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination.
Ah yes. Self determination. Unless, of course you're from Gibraltar, or the Falkland islands or Loyalist Northern Ireland. Self determination, but only if you're against the Imperialist Oppressor. Self determination doesn't mean letting Chavez continue to rule by decree, without checks or balances. Free and fair elections are not all that is required for a free society you know. You agree with the Venezuelan people while they're giving the right result, but what if they turn on Chavez? Weill he respect their opinion? What happens when the oil money stops flowing? Why no mention of the riots in Caracas? Is this all some reactionary bourgeois plot or is the capitalist media making it up to destabilise the worker's hero?

Really Livingstone, Cruddas and all the rest of you fatuous trots: Wake up and smell the coffee! Chavez is a git, unfit to run a whelk stall let alone a Government. The Venezuelan people are starting to wake up to this, but by the time they form an organised opposition (which is to be organised how, in the absence of an independent media?) it will be, and probably is already too late.

Update: and thanks to Costalot here is the video of the Spanish King telling Chavez to "Shut up" which I submit as evidence of Chavez's gittishness.

There is another country which tried Chavez's policies recently. See if you can guess which I think it is....

There was an error in this gadget