Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Sunday, 28 December 2008
Falco's First Law
If you allow the state to have power over you beyond preventing obvious harm to another, then innocent or guilty, it will be used against you and yours, by this government or the next.
Not something I say every epoch
Sunny has written a fairly sensible article about the latest Israel / Palestine (I/P) massacre.
Sunny, criticises Israel for killing one fuck of a lot of people but also provides this gem, worthy of any good swearblogger:
"As for those defending Hamas - I don’t see what else they were expecting given the recent upsurge of rocket attacks into Israeli areas. A fucking Blue Peter badge? This really is a crappy state of affairs."
Sunny is correct in saying that both are to blame but the question is how to end it. Unlike Darrell in the comments I doubt that "providing a reasonable framework for a viable state and supporting the Palestinian people" would work. There are many reasons why the I/P situation has gone on for so long, it's the longest running phony war that I'm aware of. However, this is not a Cold War to be settled by the eventual disintegration of one state and the obvious superiority of the other. The I/P is a hot war quenched by repeated international pressure and I cannot see a way out for either people without a total victory for one side or the other.
The problem with searching for a peaceful solution to this conflict is the assumption that one might exist. It is increasingly evident that there never was.
UPDATE........
We now have this from Darrell Goodliffe showing rather less sense than Sunny. I was particularly struck by this glaring example of stupidity:
"Israeli’s meanwhile would be forced to face .... that the only way to end the attacks is to make some painful but necessary concessions to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians."
Given that the only concession that would satisfy the Palestinians would be the total destruction of Israel, Darrell is rather reminiscent of an American commenter on Vietnam but gone arse about face:
"The Israelis must all die in order to win."
Sunny, criticises Israel for killing one fuck of a lot of people but also provides this gem, worthy of any good swearblogger:
"As for those defending Hamas - I don’t see what else they were expecting given the recent upsurge of rocket attacks into Israeli areas. A fucking Blue Peter badge? This really is a crappy state of affairs."
Sunny is correct in saying that both are to blame but the question is how to end it. Unlike Darrell in the comments I doubt that "providing a reasonable framework for a viable state and supporting the Palestinian people" would work. There are many reasons why the I/P situation has gone on for so long, it's the longest running phony war that I'm aware of. However, this is not a Cold War to be settled by the eventual disintegration of one state and the obvious superiority of the other. The I/P is a hot war quenched by repeated international pressure and I cannot see a way out for either people without a total victory for one side or the other.
The problem with searching for a peaceful solution to this conflict is the assumption that one might exist. It is increasingly evident that there never was.
UPDATE........
We now have this from Darrell Goodliffe showing rather less sense than Sunny. I was particularly struck by this glaring example of stupidity:
"Israeli’s meanwhile would be forced to face .... that the only way to end the attacks is to make some painful but necessary concessions to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians."
Given that the only concession that would satisfy the Palestinians would be the total destruction of Israel, Darrell is rather reminiscent of an American commenter on Vietnam but gone arse about face:
"The Israelis must all die in order to win."
Saturday, 27 December 2008
Made my day
I was just looking through the referrals and realised that this is the top of googling for: Neil Harding is an idiot.
Childish I know but fuck it, I've had the odd beer this evening.
Childish I know but fuck it, I've had the odd beer this evening.
Thought for the day
There is a stupid, socialist, (I repeat myself), school of thought that believes that various circumstances are the FAULT of the market.
This is similar to the way that erosion is the fault of the tides, rain is the fault of the clouds and deserts are the fault of the Sun.
The only difference between the upper example and those lower is that while tides, clouds and the Sun, (not the bloody newspaper, the large ball of fusioning Hydrogen), have both positive and negative results, you would be hard put to claim that for the upper.
In a free market you will trade because it makes you better off, if it does not do so, you have no force compelling you to make the trade, (until the socialist bastards make you of course).
This is similar to the way that erosion is the fault of the tides, rain is the fault of the clouds and deserts are the fault of the Sun.
The only difference between the upper example and those lower is that while tides, clouds and the Sun, (not the bloody newspaper, the large ball of fusioning Hydrogen), have both positive and negative results, you would be hard put to claim that for the upper.
In a free market you will trade because it makes you better off, if it does not do so, you have no force compelling you to make the trade, (until the socialist bastards make you of course).
Monday, 22 December 2008
Shout, shout...
A recurring theme on this blog has been the importance of freedom of speech. Regarding this story from LibCon, I do agree that it is unlikely that the proposed legislation was ever intended to attack specific bloggers, it is none the less, disagreeable and wrong.
The main problem is that it would require comment moderation for all blogs, many of which flourish on the basis of near instantaneous response. Bloggers should not be liable for comments made unless they meet the following criteria:
- The comments are slanderous.
- The blogger has been given reasonable notice to remove the comments.
-The blogger has refused to do so.
Going beyond this would be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech.
There have historically been few ways for people to communicate their ideas and the great advantage of blogging is that it is a universally distributable media, (whether anyone listens is another matter but down to the writer to sink or swim). Any legislation on blogging is likely to reduce free speech and there are few legitimate reasons to do this. All the proposed legislation, (that I am aware of), on this subject deserves to be fought to a bloody standstill.
The main problem is that it would require comment moderation for all blogs, many of which flourish on the basis of near instantaneous response. Bloggers should not be liable for comments made unless they meet the following criteria:
- The comments are slanderous.
- The blogger has been given reasonable notice to remove the comments.
-The blogger has refused to do so.
Going beyond this would be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech.
There have historically been few ways for people to communicate their ideas and the great advantage of blogging is that it is a universally distributable media, (whether anyone listens is another matter but down to the writer to sink or swim). Any legislation on blogging is likely to reduce free speech and there are few legitimate reasons to do this. All the proposed legislation, (that I am aware of), on this subject deserves to be fought to a bloody standstill.
Whoop, whoop...
There are times when you have to look at a person's actions and think, "What in all the name of fuckety fuck were they playing at?".
Met Assistant Commissioner Mr. Quick was unsurprisingly annoyed by a story in the Hate Mail that his wife runs a car business from their home. His next statement was both stupid and counter to his own interests:
"The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in."
How stupid can you be. You might think that being a policeman he would understand that it would be a good idea to have some evidence before accusing people of criminal activity.
Oh yeah, I forgot our Dear Protectors track record on that for a moment.
Met Assistant Commissioner Mr. Quick was unsurprisingly annoyed by a story in the Hate Mail that his wife runs a car business from their home. His next statement was both stupid and counter to his own interests:
"The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in."
How stupid can you be. You might think that being a policeman he would understand that it would be a good idea to have some evidence before accusing people of criminal activity.
Oh yeah, I forgot our Dear Protectors track record on that for a moment.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Oh Sir Arthur
As was widely expected following the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, (the link is, I assure you, entirely correct and intentional), the Irish will be voting again.
Call me a cynical bastard with a conscience but I thought no meant no, asking repeatedly with growing threats until you get the "correct" answer is just not cricket, (I now live on the Isle of Wight and I'm feeling old fashioned).
Richard Corbett MEP, (Labour), is a particular case of scum in point however:
"I'm not sure if people in Ireland were aware what 'no' means - 27 minus Ireland"
Might it by any chance mean NO, you useless bag of scrofula scrapings? Also, given that the Irish have been the only population offered a CHOICE on whether or not to sign the Constitution Mark 2, could it be that you just don't agree with what people want?
I will be fisking this little list later.
Call me a cynical bastard with a conscience but I thought no meant no, asking repeatedly with growing threats until you get the "correct" answer is just not cricket, (I now live on the Isle of Wight and I'm feeling old fashioned).
Richard Corbett MEP, (Labour), is a particular case of scum in point however:
"I'm not sure if people in Ireland were aware what 'no' means - 27 minus Ireland"
Might it by any chance mean NO, you useless bag of scrofula scrapings? Also, given that the Irish have been the only population offered a CHOICE on whether or not to sign the Constitution Mark 2, could it be that you just don't agree with what people want?
I will be fisking this little list later.
Renegade Master
After a considerable break, I have returned, (bloody life interfering, how dare it).
I've not had the best of times but I will once again be providing my unique line of blather about the events of the day.
Hurrah!...etc
I've not had the best of times but I will once again be providing my unique line of blather about the events of the day.
Hurrah!...etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
