KERRY GOLD..



Here's an amusingly sycophantic article on Mr Nuance - John Kerry - from Ray O'Hanlon in the Irish News. I like Ray's peculiar notion that Kerry will be compared to JFK. No chance. Kerry is a hopeless candidate with no ideas worth a dime - however the fact that the US population is so divided, and that the media is so baised in favour of the botox one - and that Democratic voters would support a chimp if it stood against Bush - means that a Bush victory can't be taken for granted. But it should happen despite the media frenzy and Kerry's inertia!

Read more...

SADDAM'S TRIAL...



Well Well - tyrant Saddam has been brought to court - with a hanging hopefully not far away. And the surprise witness for the defence? The BBC of course! I laughed at their hopeless attempt to disguise their sorrow at poor Saddam's imminent demise. I noted their attempt to throw doubt on the "legitimacy" of Iraqi's standing in judegment on the man who tortured them for decades. It appears that the BBC reckons only an "International" court could really give Saddam a fair trial. MMM..let's see, maybe put a German, French, Belgium and Russian Judge on the bench and who knows, Saddam might not only get off but find himself restored to those golden thrones he loved so well!



Here's the bottom-line. Saddam must be tried by those who lived under his diktat. They will judge him and his foul deeds, along with his henchmen. My sincere hope is that he is executed - preferably in public view. You can just imagine what Boy Assad next door in Syria would be thinking. One Baathist tyrant swinging..only one left.

Read more...

THE OTHER ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL...



Hang on - you haven't heard about THIS Abu Ghraib scandal.



"On 8 June, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, D.C., showed a four-minute video it received from the Pentagon. The video was taken in Abu Ghraib prison during the time of Saddam Hussein. It showed beheadings, fingers and hands sliced off, beatings, tongues cut out with razor blades — horrific footage intended for Saddam’s own viewing.



In an attempt to drum-up interest in the screening, AEI sent invitations to the assignment desks of over 40 national news organizations. Only a few saw fit to send reporters. The difference between the press coverage accorded this photographic documentation of Ba’athist torture (almost none) and that received by the pictures of the American morons in Abu Ghraib (seemingly endless, with almost 200 stories in The New York Times alone) speaks for itself."



More here...

Read more...

WHAT IF D-DAY HAD BEEN REPORTED TODAY?



William Mayer has a great take on the likely manner in which the Normandy Landings would have been reported if our current media had held the same grip that they presently do. Help - it's a quagmire!



Here's an excerpt...



"Underlining the less than effective Allied attack, German casualties--most of them innocent and hapless conscripts--seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that "the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war."

Read more...

MATHS TEACHING THEN AND NOW!!



Read this from John Derbyshire - best maths joke I've heard in a while...! It tells us all we need to know about the teaching of Mathematics over the years in the States...the same applies here in the UK...



"Teaching math to American kids in...



— 1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?



— 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?



— 1970: A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C", the cost of production, contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M." Answer this question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?



— 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.



— 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20 profit. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.



— 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?



- 2010: El hachero vende un camion carga por $100 La cuesta de produccion es....."

Read more...

WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE...



"Still, in democracy, "every country gets the government it deserves". And when we wake to the apprehension that our government is corrupt, cynical, and venal, vast and unaccountable, that its gestures are empty and its ideas perverse, that it makes a hash of everything it touches, and lowers the moral tone of our society, we must finally look within. We, the citizens, allowed this to happen. We were the ones who failed to turn them out: who solemnly decided they were "good enough for us"



Wise words from David Warren.

Read more...

Feeney and Nationalist Sclerosis



I won't dwell for too long on this week's whinge by Brian Feeney. Extensive concentration on the literary bile produced by this self-serving, petulant hack leaves one feeling distinctly nauseous.



Nonetheless, one noteworthy paragraph in this week's example of Feeney's customary lucubration, is his take on the political leanings of Northern Ireland civil servants. By arguing that: 'Pro-Union civil servants at Stormont have once again their dead hand on the administration of the Good Friday Agreement', Feeney offers an insight into Irish nationalist perspectives on the exequaturs of UK sovereignty. Civil servants are employed by the State to uphold the rules, regulations, vested interests and integrity of the State. Do idiots such as Feeney automatically equate a sense of duty to the State with partisan attitudes in favour of Unionist culture and believes? Probably!!! It is this view, for example, which led to the destruction of the RUC, and the reason why Sinn Fein/IRA will never endorse the present police service. It has nothing to do with the police acting as the 'armed wing of Unionism' and everything to do with the raison d'etre of police forces throughout the world - upholding the authority and legitimacy of the State in which they operate.



Feeney has, once again, overlooked sensible argument to enable him to retreat into a quagmire of eternal nationalist grievances just because the State will not override the wishes of an obvious majority within a portion of its realm. How sad he is, and how pathetic!!!

Read more...

Howard's Way



Simon Heffer has produced this interesting piece on the Tory Party in The Spectator. He says it is insufficient to have a leader whose prowess is demonstrated verbally at the Dispatch Box once a week. To have any chance of making headway at the next General Election, the Conservative Party will have to take the lead on innovative policies designed to capture the mood of the electorate.



British Conservatism has been a traditionally 'catch all' movement, a fact reflected in its broad base of support. Thus, if certain policies were key to the popularity of the Opposition at a given time, Conservatism would gradually adopt and adapt those policies as integral parts of Right-wing philosophy. In seeking to move increasingly onto New Labour territory over issues such as health, education, transport, and over-emphatic deference to minority viewpoints, the Conservatives are following previous strategies, but with contrasting fortunes. Why? Because this Labour government is NOT a popular regime. Aping a government whose fortunes are in steady decline is axiomatically no way to ensure their defeat.



Michael Howard, like Duncan Smith and Hague before him, cannot yet contextualise what is needed to achieve electoral success. For Hague, it was the lack of understanding of the events which precipitated the 1997 defeat: a party divided over Europe, oozing perceptions of economic incompetence. For Howard, it is the eagerness to provide a plethora of policies virtually indistinguishable from what is currently on offer from Blair's New Labour project.



Permitting the Portillistas to gain a stranglehold on policy enunciations emanating from a sense of guilt over attitudes to 'social justice', has been a notable contributory factor in the lack of Tory success. For those of us who yearn to see the back of Blair, and the establishment of a Conservative government, we urge Howard to create a radical but viable alternative set of manifesto pledges on the principal issues of the day. These are, as Heffer points out, public services, immigration, law and order, and taxation. A decidedly Euro-sceptic stance coupled with pledges to uphold the Union will also have a positive result provided they are articulated in perspective. It is no longer enough for the Conservatives to be a 'catch all' movement if they only thing they are catching is negativity.

Read more...