Whilst still agog at the snatch in Venezuela, let’s not forget that Iran remains on the brink.
Might be a good time for the IDF or USAF to JDAM a few HQ buildings or mess with telecommunications 😀
|
|||||
|
Whilst still agog at the snatch in Venezuela, let’s not forget that Iran remains on the brink. Might be a good time for the IDF or USAF to JDAM a few HQ buildings or mess with telecommunications 😀 I saw this on Fraser Nelson’s Substack (it seems everyone has a Substack these days). The British journalist has been to Thailand with his wife, and noted this positive healthcare outcome in Thailand:
I had the same frustrating experience in dealing with my own ankle/knee pain issues about six years ago, but unlike Nelson, I did not fly thousands of miles to get treated (which clearly has to be factored in for the health tourist equation to work. But then Fraser Nelson was in the country anyway on holiday.) I have private medical cover, but did not use it on this occasion, and got sorted with specially made insoles, and did physio and various exercises – including barbell lifts such as the deadlift – to strengthen my knees, and so forth. I am a lot better and feel fitter than when I was a decade younger. Whatever the specifics, the example given from Thailand shows that the UK’s free-at-the-point-of-use system has major faults, because there’s less of a price incentive to focus on what people are looking for, and therefore fresh sources of supply aren’t drawn in. Prices are information carriers, and like a clogged artery, a healthcare system run on socialist lines can produce the national equivalent of a stroke. (This in some ways describes the economy of the UK.) Healthcare needs a sharp dose of capitalism along with green veggies and a daily walk. Think of how under free market healthcare, technologies such as 3-D printing/processing scale up production, in a customised way, of items such as hip replacement parts, knee replacement parts, insoles, and other things. This tech already is being used, but under a more market-based UK system, this will accelerate. The toolkit that is promised by AI could really drive change in a positive way (and I am not as starry eyed about AI as some might be). Healthcare needs its Jobs, Dyson and Rockefeller. Anyway , thoughts about health and wellbeing often crop up in the cold, post-Christmas days of January, so it is time for me to hit the weights. Wishing everyone here a happy 2026. So soon into 2026, I am delighted Maduro is gone… just as I was delighted when Saddam Hussain was overthrown in 2003. Yet in retrospect, I had no idea how unwise successive US governments would be when it came to handling the aftermath in Iraq. Trump says what will follow in Venezuela will not be ‘nation building’ so much as literal direct rule by the USA “until a proper and judicious transition” (whatever that means). Yet is there any indication the US actually has control of Venezuela? To what extent has Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela been dismantled, if at all? One night of air strikes will not have eliminated the regime’s security apparatus. Will there be a Marine Expeditionary Force in Caracas in the next few days? And I hope when I next check the news, I discover that we’ve put a missile down Khamenei’s smokestack, and that Putin and his entourage have perished mysteriously in an accident involving an exploding tractor or something. Wouldn’t that make for a great news day. (Given how surprising the news has been so far in 2026, who would be such a fool as to blithely rule that out?) Bloody hell! I woke up and read a US SpecOp has captured Maduro and flown him out of the country 😀 The establishment never sleeps, does it? At the beginning of last year Channel 4, came up with a glossy report dressed up as concern for the youth. “Gen Z: Trends, Truth and Trust,” they called it, a title that drips with the sort of paternalistic sanctimony you’d expect from a broadcaster that’s long been the darling of the liberal elite. Delivered in a keynote speech that was part TED Talk, part sermon, then CEO, and recently gonged Alex Mahon CBE painted a picture of Britain’s young people as lost souls adrift in a sea of misinformation, desperately in need of rescue by surprise, surprise. the very institutions that have spent decades alienating them. What is concerning is that some of her predictions are coming to pass. But let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t a fair-minded attempt to help Gen Z navigate the news. It’s a brazen power grab, a sly manoeuvre by the modern establishment to control what young people read, watch, and believe. Through a highly sceptical lens, one that sees through the veneer of altruism, this report reeks of desperation. The old guard is panicking because Gen Z isn’t buying their narrative anymore. And why should they? These kids have grown up in a world stacked against them, jobs vanishing to AI, a housing market that’s a sick joke, student debts piled high by a system that promises opportunity but delivers chains. They’re not falling for “fake news”; they’re spotting the real biases in the so-called trusted sources. Mahon’s call? Rein in the wild west of the internet, slap labels on “reliable” content, and let the state play gatekeeper. Freedom of speech? That’s so last century. I do not have a good enough grasp of Iran’s internal political and social dynamics to know if this wave of resistance has an real prospect of unseating the ghastly Islamic regime… but that would indeed be a truly wonderous start to 2026 if it was to happen. “Aborting baby girls proves Britain’s multiculturalism experiment has failed”, writes ex-Guardian writer Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph:
Later in the article she gives her own view:
I do not see any good reason for the scare quotes Suzanne Moore put around the word “tradition”. A tradition of which Suzanne Moore disapproves is still a tradition. Nor do I see any good reason for her saying “this is not about choice”. It quite obviously is about choice. Unlike Ms Moore, I am closer to being “pro-life” than “pro-choice”. Here’s an old post of mine that talks about that. I do not agree with the view that the question is simply one of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body; there is another life involved. The exact weight to give the competing rights of the foetus depend on a lot of factors, primarily how developed – how far from being a clump of cells and how near to being unquestionably a baby – the foetus is, but also including other factors such as the risk to the mother and whether the foetus is developing normally. However if one grants that a woman’s right to choose abortion does override the foetus’s right to life in particular circumstances, then the nature of a right to do something is that the person with that right does not need the approval of others to do that thing. Putting it another way, how can it be justified that a female foetus that is solemnly decreed not to have a right to life suddenly gains that right if the woman wants to abort because of sexist tradition? Does that still work if the foetus is male and the woman wants to abort it because she’s a radical feminist? There have been so many criticisms of Mearsheimer that I doubt anyone cares at this point. But I wanted to raise something rarely mentioned: M. is not actually making a realist argument. Which is ironic given how much damage he has done to the realist brand. I’m going to share a secret only political scientists know about. There are actually two John J. Mearsheimers. The first one wrote The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) and says powerful states are dissatisfied by nature, and will go to war whenever they can. The second one, born in 2014, disagrees. Yes, states go to war because it’s the central feature of political life — except Russia, who goes to war because of American liberals. The first Mearsheimer is a theorist of international anarchy. The second is a moralist of American sin. The two have never met, but if they did they would hate each other. Starmer’s commitment to universal human rights – which necessarily implies open borders – is now a threat to national security and, paradoxically, the human rights of the British people. By welcoming el-Fattah, a virulent anti-Semite, Starmer has violated the right of our Jewish community to feel secure in their own land. His refusal to police the pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic hate marchers since October 2023 has also trampled on the security of British Jews and infringed upon their liberty – Central London has become a no-go zone. Our speech laws are bad enough. But at least they can, in theory, be repealed and amended by members of parliament. NCHIs, by contrast, just bubbled up out of the policing quangocracy. No law was ever passed instructing the police to waste their time like this. But on and on they’ve gone, for more than a decade now. |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Recent Comments