Prepare yourself for a mega-dose of bitter irony. Please take a look at this link to a splendid 100% Che-free site, kindly sent to me by Toni.
|
|||||
|
Tony Blair now does not even feel the need to hide the fact he intends to introduce summary ‘justice’ in Britain without the inconvenience of a trial or other for of due process.
So in other words, rather than just arresting the person and then determining the facts in a trial, we are just supposed to trust that the police will always act in good faith and impose summary justice only against the truly guilty and with only the best judgement. Calling Judge Dredd, please report to Scotland Yard to collect your warrent card. Courts? Bah! Who needs ’em? So I have been an alarmist all these years, eh? October 13th, 2005 | 32 comments - (Comments are closed)
 My contempt for the Nobel Prize for anything grew dramatically today when I read that Harold Pinter won the award for literature. The fact he is an apologist for Europe’s most prolific mass murdering socialist since Joseph Stalin, namely Slobodan Milosovic, is apparently is not something which bothers the worthies in Sweden. A contemptible prize for a contemptible man. October 13th, 2005 | 51 comments - (Comments are closed)
No prize for now guessing why not much blogging got done today…As Paul Marks got his review up first, I will content myself with just a few observations about Joss Whedon’s magnificent Serenity. It is what the last three Star Wars movies were trying to be but failed. Serenity has an engaging story, good direction and brilliant writing (it is a tour de force of quips and memorable one liners) and as Paul points out, it is extremely sound politically. It is also very well cast, with Nathan Fillion truly marvellous as the charismatic Captain ‘Mal’, playing it every inch the Wild West hero (for this movie is nothing if not a Western which just happens to be set in outer-space). Also convincing is the bizarrely named Summer Glau, whose strange looks and lithe moves are well suited to the demented character she plays. Highly recommended! Run, do not walk, to your nearest cinema. Do not wait for the DVD! October 9th, 2005 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
So is GWB really facing ‘rebellion‘ by conservatives over his choice of nominee to the Supreme Court? It has long puzzled me why he has been cut so much slack for so long given that his conservative credentials were never very strong to begin with. I guess just not being Bill Clinton was enough for the GOP’s supporters to stomach his significant expansion of Big Government and clear lack of any interest in trying to revive the squandered Reagan legacy. But is this the straw that breaks the camels back or just a storm in a media teacup? Are there really enough people in the GOP willing to derail his latest nominee to the Supreme Court on ideological grounds and do they think there is any chance of them getting someone more to their liking from a Big Government statist like George Bush Jr.? Is this ‘outrage’ on the right going to make a difference? I will be curious see how this is really going to play out. October 8th, 2005 | 26 comments - (Comments are closed)
The uses of nano-technology will be many and revolutionise pretty much everything. Micro-circuits? How about nano-circuits! October 8th, 2005 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
It has been claimed by the BBC that George Bush has said he was “instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan”, not “inspired by his Christian beliefs” mind you, actually “instructed”, presumably via some sort of celestial Red Telephone in the Oval Office. Now he may or may not have actually said that (the BBC is rather prone to run with whatever story fits its world view), but I can certainly believe he might have said those things. As the guy is a practicing Christian, it is to be expected that the G word is something that might come easy to his lips. Now I am all in favour of the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan but I really do wonder if he has any idea how utterly bonkers that sort of thing sounds to non-believers such as myself? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying he should deny his faith if he thinks he has a personal relationship with God. If that is how he sees things, why should he not say so? I realise than many of my utterances about liberty and the world generally strike many of a different bent as equally bizarre. But I am well aware how negatively my remarks are often received even though I may not actually care a great deal… but at least I know. But I wonder if GWB actually has the slightest idea how he sounds to some people when he invoked his deity in such a manner? Is the President of the United States really saying he hears voices in his head and acts on what he hears? Just curious. October 7th, 2005 | 97 comments - (Comments are closed)
So the Iranian government is assisting insurgent to attack British troops in Iraq. No real surprise there, methinks. However Tony Blair ‘warning’ the Iranians with remarks like…
… exactly what sort of response from Iran, other than a blanket denial, does he expect? Sack your advisers Tony and try something along the lines of:
The trick here is not to do it covertly but to be quite open about it and why it is being done. I rather doubt he has the stones for such an approach, but hey, Blair has surprised me in the past. October 7th, 2005 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
No, another one quite separate to the festivities in Iraq… Chief Inspector of HM Prisons Anne Owers has declared that the national symbol of England, the Cross of St. George, is racist and must not be worn by prison guards in case it upsets Muslim prisoners. And it seems Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, agrees, saying that the Red Cross of St. George was “an insensitive reminder of the Crusades”, adding: “…that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with.” Who is “we”? Perhaps Chris Doyle and his Council for Dhimmitude should spend more time getting Arabs to understand the British rather than the other way around. I wonder how this organisation would react to calls for Muslims to abandon the crescent moon, the green flag and all other overly Muslim symbols as being offensive to some English people who may associate them with slavery? I mean, if it is ok for Muslims to be offended by English people in England wearing English symbols that remind some people of a series of wars that ended in 1300, how can anyone mind if I object to Muslims in England wearing Muslim symbols that I choose to associate with Muslim atrocities against English people which ended practically yesterday… i.e. when Lord Exmouth destroyed Algiers in 1816? Completely daft of course but if we accept the logic of the likes of Anne Owers and Chris Doyle, it seems inevitable. Are they sure they want to go down that path? October 4th, 2005 | 84 comments - (Comments are closed)
I cannot tell you how happy this makes me:
No, really? I wonder what gave them that impression… October 4th, 2005 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Perhaps you think I am talking about Venezuela under the thuggish Chavez? Nope. I am talking about Britain. October 4th, 2005 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
Perhaps you think I am talking about Venezuela under the thuggish Chavez? Nope. I am talking about Britain. October 4th, 2005 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||