Monday, April 07, 2008
Try your hand at the following phonetic dictionary meanings.
The first offerings were here.
The second offerings were here.
The third offerings were here.
The fourth offerings are here:
31 Gangrene...................IRA hitsquad
32 Grateful.....................Enough firewood
34 Handicap...................Useful hat
35 Huguenot...................Large tangle
36 Ideal...........................You shuffle
39 Innuendo....................Italian suppository
40 Inquire........................Member of chorus
In each case, supply the required word which must include the letter group "ant":
1. Tennis term when players are equal and it gets boring [-age]
2. Mood when with a lady and hopefully state when falling o/b [b-]
3. Many males' equipment after 40 [d-]
4. Wrong [no clue this time]
5. My love life might be this [-asy]
Should you be requiring any more "ant" words, here are some. Answers are in white below - you need to highlight:
advantage, buoyant, dormant, errant, fantasy
Feministi: Sadly one of the fundamental beliefs of bachelorism is that women are to blame for divorce.
Kelly Mac: You can disagree all you want. Women instigate the majority of divorces. Numbers don’t lie.
Heaps more over there.
Regarding First Great Western and their accessibility from abroad with their super-duper new system, Tim Worstall opines:
Using their online system, you cannot book a ticket from outside the country.
Which knuckle dragging mouth breather designed that system then?
Well done Mr. Haines. You’re a credit to British industry.
F---wit. [slightly abridged as this is a family blog]
Welcome to Nu-Britain.
Mrs Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, and pollster Geoff Garin will take over co-ordinating her "strategic message team".
Strategic message? Have I missed something here?
This means that bank lending, as a proportion of GDP, doubles every 7 years. How long can this continue? How long before we are completely robbed and enslaved? Or am I asking a fool's question?
Not in the least - been going on a long time now. Will all collapse and start over again as usual.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
The idea is that this is a "phonetic" dictionary and so the definitions do not actually accord with the meaning of the words but with the sounds of those words.
So, take "antelope", definition "absconding insect". "Ant" - the little insect. "Elope" - to run away with one's lover. Similarly, with "badinage" - the phonetic meaning comes out as "bad in age" - memory, sex, teeth.
If you get the idea, you might like to try these below:
The first offerings were here.
The second offerings were here.
The third offerings are here:
20 Equilibrium...............Sedative for horses
22 Farthing....................Distant object
24 Flatulent...................Borrowed apartment
25 Fodder.......................Male parent
26 Foolhardy..................Stan Laurel
27 Forensic.....................Migrants unwell
30 Frigate!......................Angry exclamation
Can you state, in each case, why that particular phonetic meaning?
There are some excellent things about the Russians - the warm-heartedness, the way everything is negotiable but there are also some not so good. One of the worst is when they try to emulate the west in ripping people off.
They've learnt the art of curtailing services "for your convenience" and now they've hit the loo roll.
Now just look at the pic above - do they look the same size? Do they really look comparable? For a start, look at the:
1. overall size - hardly equal, wouldn't you agree;
2. squidginess - look at the firm, hard roll on the right, lovingly packed with paper and then the wobbly abomination on the left;
3. the outrageous claim - the one on the left trumpets "65 metres" and the one on the right has the maker's name. Ha - the one on the right is shorter, yes - I just measured them - and you know why, reader? Because the one on the left is half the bl--dy weight of the other and you don't need to be a genius to know what that means when that moment is reached.
This "tormoz" [local name for limited intellect] thought it was oh so clever to sell the new one on the left and no one would notice. Well I did - the moment I tried to take the wrapper off, half the roll came away [see photo above for evidence] and now I have half a soggy roll.
The word "Kalashnikov" hovers perilously close to the tongue and the trigger finger is itching right now.
What is particularly galling is that if you fronted the Receding Brow with said Kalashnikov, he'd claim it was market forces made him do it. He can have a couple of rounds in his market forces then and see how he likes these new times we live in.
Now I wouldn't want you to get the idea I was a little less than gruntled of course. It is Sunday after all and we're meant to forgive and forget.
Hot damn - some more just came away and my fingers went through it. Right - I'll be back in a few minutes - spot of culling needs doing downstairs. Will you excuse me?
This is not an invasion of privacy by any means - it's just an invasion of anatomy.
Not saying my own views are as extreme as this but the following is quite understandable. Why it is understandable follows all the quotes:
Anti-male judicial bias by courts places more than nine out of ten of these children of divorce into the custody of their mothers, precisely where the government knows from the NIS-3 Study that they are more than three times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered]. Before this money grab by feminists was called "child support", it was called "alimony".
And before fathers were financially penalized for the privilege of having their children removed from them, less than six percent of the nation's children lived in fatherless households. Women entered law and became the majority voter in the 1960s, "child support" was created, and two out of five of our nation's children will be sleeping in a fatherless household tonight.
Because fatherless children have a forty percent higher premature mortality rate than children raised in families, independent of the fact that children of divorce are more likely to divorce themselves, seventy two thousand of these twenty three million fatherless children will die prematurely each year, year after year.
It is conservatively estimated that the negative economic incentive to twenty million fathers paying "child support" reduces their average incomes of $43,000 by twenty five percent, which reduces GDP by $215 billion. Total government costs are forty two cents of each wage, so this $215 billion reduction in GDP reduces tax collections by $90 billion.
The legal fees, counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and other costs paid directly by fathers is estimated by Bill Harrington, US Commissioner on Families, to be $200 billion per year.
Shared parenting and reasonable support of children will never take place so long as governmental focus is solely on extracting the largest possible sums of money by making children fatherless. Last month, British ministers announced their intent to demolish the national Child Support Agency (CSA).Or ...
They have realized it is an overbearing, expensive failure hurting marriage, driving divorce, and placing the government in the middle of never-ending power-squabbles over money and children. They plan to return responsibility to parents who (for the most part) will be expected to work out their own support and parenting arrangements.
So the Child Support Agency is to be scrapped. Sounds like good news for all those people - men and women, 'caring' and 'absent' parents - who have been let down or persecuted by it. Problem is, it looks set to be replaced by something even worse.
Governments always announce their latest measures on child support by declaring that the prime interest is that of the child. Quite right. But could someone please explain to me how a child would benefit from having one of its parents electronically tagged or having bailiffs sent round to flog their possessions?!
The core problem with all of this government's, and previous governments', policies on child support is that they are based on a stereotype of a father who has walked out on his offspring and done nothing other than try to evade his responsibilities and live the life of Riley while his kid and his/her mother struggle by.
Feminism has NEVER been about equal rights. Nowhere is this fact more clear to me than in the family courts system which of course has been entirely infiltrated by feminists and their many sympathizers. Fathers are these days being treated very badly indeed in pretty much all western countries. If it were mothers being systematically treated in such an inhuman way there would have been a revolution by now.Or ...
Even though the amount of the average “child support payment” due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of “child support” collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
Australia's Child Support scheme, however well intentioned, has lost its relevance to families and can no longer meet its objectives.
OK, enough quotes to get the general idea. Now to personal experience:
I made an agreement with my two exes when the lie of the land was becoming clear and it involved a lump sum arrangement. It devastated me financially but in the end I recovered. If there was any special need over and above from then on, I was and still am quite happy to pay. This is how it can be done if the two people are going to be reasonable. But the two people are usually not going to be reasonable, are they?
So here is the current scenario set up to counter this:
Set up a Feminist riddled, man-bashing agency [and this is no straw man, in terms of the evidence above] with token male staff and go all out to track down recalcitrant males. This then spawns numerous men's groups who provide help in avoiding the ravening monster and defaulting fathers find even more ingenious ways to avoid their responsibilities.
Lord Nazh puts the American solution, the prenup:
With the luck of this family so far, a prenup is actually a very smart move. I don't think this marriage would last long either heh.
I take issue with this. The prenup seems such a calculated move before the marriage even takes place that it must surely put pressure on both parties to emote freely within that marriage.
The material in the quotes above is extreme but it is the polarized position men are pushed into when an aggressive lobby like the Feminists gets it's hands on things and feeds women's angst. Of course men will take that position under such assault.
More rationally, I have been on both sides and would like to put a different solution to the problem.
Enact a law which requires any separating couple, de jure or de facto, when property is involved, to sit down with an independent arbiter-at-law and thrash out an agreement using guidelines previously thrashed out by all interested organizations, including men's support groups, to find a fair and equitable formula.
Then the signature of the two parties is binding and it becomes a matter of law if one or other party defaults. This method has the advantage in that it secures the agreement in writing of both parties.
If both parties agree to waive this in favour of their own agreement, then let it be so.
I was "the other man" in my first "marriage" and saw the ex's cynical manoeuvres to avoid payment - one trick was by remaining a student well past his 42nd year. Therefore he pleaded no money and lived in a garret which supported this contention.
He took the point of view that if she was going to p-ss him off and shack up with another guy - me - then I could pay for her. I agreed that I should do this but paying for his kids was another matter. Though they came with the territory, he still shouldn't have abrogated his entire responsibility for this.
What was more aggravating was that he would take the kids away for the weekend and they'd come back restless, loaded with presents which the mum could never afford and with a view of the mum as some sort of ogre.
I think women tend to pick up the pieces and move on but men, psychologically, just can't. Maybe we're more territorial, I don't know. But I do know the male just wants "out" once she's cut the tie.
That's why I think an obligatory agreement struck early in the piece by both parties gives a much greater chance to the party who has the children at home. It removes the onus on a witchhunting, Feminist infested agency to chase up defaulters and becomes a straight matter of law and breach of contract.
The legal side of it seems far more straightforward this way.
I think mens' attitudes would be far more reasonable too. For example, if I knew there was a signed agreement and I knew the money was earmarked for the kids by law and wasn't being channeled into her herself, if I knew that the kids were benefiting directly, I'd be more than happy to even pay over the odds and even more if finances stretched to it [in real terms].
But she can't expect I'd give anything to her herself. That would be asking too much.
The counter argument is one I also know well - the absconding father and I can understand a woman's feelings in this matter - she'd want the full force of the law brought down on him and who'd disagree with this? But again, if he'd previously signed an agreement, she has far greater chance in real terms of getting an equitable and ongoing arrangement going.
In other words, it would not be just the discredited Child Support Agency but the whole mechanism of society at hand to enforce this.
I wrote previously on the matter here and here and a series on divorce here, here and here.
I felt their presence before I heard them. I was sure there was someone coming up behind me. My right hip feeling as though it was on fire with acid hot pain I knew my gait was particularly poor but could only concentrate on keeping going.
This piece highlights the fear of the unknown - I could feel those footsteps behnd me.
Wonko on free transportation for pensioners:
Free public transport is only one area where English pensioners are disadvantaged compared to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (free central heating, free elderly care, for example) but it’s one that has the potential to make a real difference to their lives, particularly those with mobility problems.
I'm not a complete conservative - there is one area the state must stay invovled in and that is free everything for pensioners, with extra for the armed forces retirees.
The Quiet Man points out, on "the appearance of doing something":
It's a trap all politicians fall into, having to produce kneejerk reactions to perceived public concerns. Otherwise they believe we'll think they aren't earning their money.
The Cityunslicker also alludes, tangentially, to this matter of appearing to do something:
With the greatest respect, it cannot be so, Grendel:
In the study undertaken led by Amit Kagian a computer has successfully been taught to interpret and recognise interpret attractiveness in women. As Kagian explained "Until now, computers have been taught how to identify basic facial characteristics, such as the difference between a woman and a man, and even to detect facial expressions. But our software lets a computer make an aesthetic judgment. Linked to sentiments and abstract thought processes, humans can make a judgment, but they usually don't understand how they arrived at their conclusions."
Surely it depends on so many nuances, this attractiveness. I know many so-called beauties who are haughty shells and the opposite too. How can a computer detect that?
Young Duncan is "getting responsible" in his old age. Have to smile at his "progress report":
I had a new year’s resolution this year. As part of my current crisis (i.e. having to become responsible), I am trying to get my notoriously bad sleeping pattern in order. Amazingly, I have stuck to the first part of the resolution.
For the past three months, I have been keeping a log of my sleeping patterns. It’s quite detailed. Every morning I open up my big Excel spreadsheet and record the time I went to bed, when I think I fell asleep, when I woke up and when I actually got my lazy arse out of bed. I also note when I set my alarm for. From all of this I work out how long I am unable to sleep, how long I sleep in and… well, how lazy I am.
Last but not least, the stupendously brilliant 1st Lady and Lady Muck are at it again. All aboard the bus and off we go ...
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Hint - it was the reason I selected the rabbit, of all animals.
Answer is below here so don't look until you've tried - you need to highlight the next line as it's written in white :)
Ingrid Bergman - the only one from a non-large family.
When the Conservatives took control of Telford & Wrekin Council they replaced the flag of the EU with the English flag. I hope they take advantage of the new relaxed flag flying rules to remove the British flag and replace it with our own national flag, the Cross of St George.
April 23rd coming up, folks. Don't forget it. The dragon will be festooned with his coat of blue and 12 stars in a circle.
So, take "antelope", definition "absconding insect". "Ant" - the little insect. "Elope" - to run away with one's lover.
Similarly, with "badinage" - the phonetic meaning comes out as "bad in age" - memory, sex, teeth.
If you get the idea, try these below:
The first offerings were here.
Here are the second:
3 Adenoid..................Irritated by advertsCan you state, in each case, why that particular phonetic meaning?
4 Alimony..................Arab coins
7 Aphrodisiac............Trapeze artists from Zaire
9 Barbecue................Awaiting haircut
12 Capsize................Seven and three-quarters
14 Castanet....................Go fishing
19 Emulate.....................Dead bird
Friday, April 04, 2008
I countered by saying that that was rich and recounted an incident three evenings ago when I was in the cafe and a guy and his girl came in. She positioned herself where she could check out the cafe and while he was forking some spaghetti into his mouth, the first cross-room shot was fired.
I naturally returned it and it might have continued except that that chap could have been me, poor sod.
My fellow discussee pointed out that this made me as bad as all the others, at which point I said hmmm, well I don't look at them - they look at me.
She asked how I knew they were looking at me if I hadn't been looking to see if they were looking at me? And why would they be looking at me anyway? I replied that it might be my white scarf and balding pate.
At that point, fortuitously, the car arrived and I got away.
On reflection in the car, I was sure I didn't make eyes at girls but definitely know when they look at me, at which point I usually look back. How would I know? Well it's easy to see movement through 180 degrees or more - surely you can do that too? So a face turned towards you would be obvious, even if you weren't looking.
I decided this evening to put it to some controlled tests, involving walking to the Pyramid and trying various moves along the way.
1. First was to see how it normally worked and I was going to scrutinize and analyse everything. The controlling premise was that it had to be a girl with a bf.
All right, along came the first and an interesting thing happened.
At about ten metres, he was oblivious but she had already seen what was coming. It might have been my white scarf, it might have been my balding pate. Either way, within two metres, all three making moves to step aside to pass, he, being closest to me and taller, never got to see what she was doing.
She initially dropped the chin and eyes but then, at one metre, the look was shot across, her face half hidden by the bf's arm. I suddenly looked and she looked away quickly but as we passed, the 2nd look came from the side.
He was still oblivious to the whole thing.
2. This time I showed absolutely no interest [but don't forget the 180 degree vision]. I stared straight ahead and let them pass and there was the dropped head half hidden behind the bf and one quick look but then she ceased looking.
3. The third was a slap in the face for me as she showed not the least interest and resolutely looked ahead, gripping the bf's arm.
4. The fourth was like the first except that, instead of returning her look, I let a slight grin play on my lips. She didn't give me a second look.
5. The fifth was more dangerous as I telegraphed the move early and glanced in full view of the bf. He began his predictable body language, she dropped her head and then shot the look but he looked at her and she covered it well. Phew. Then again, he'd clearly summed up that the opposition wasn't much and didn't bother with me as we passed.
6. The sixth was at the traffic lights - they were across the road. I didn't look once. She looked the whole time, even as we passed. It might have been my white pate or balding scarf.
7. I never tried where I'd make eyes at her [wanting to keep the high moral ground with my afrementioned discussee] but I surmise the gf would have looked straight ahead and ignored this sleazy jerk.
So what did it prove?
That everyone at least notices what goes on around, that the second or continued look is really the only one you could take issue with, that you get more looks if you don't seem to look and maybe that men should be more aware of their gf's relative position next time they go for a walk with her.
Also - never make eyes at a girl with a large bf.
A regional "senate" of local council leaders could oversee Advantage West Midlands spending, under plans unveiled by the Government.
The region’s top local government figures, including the leaders of councils such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Dudley, Walsall and Sandwell, will meet together to oversee spending of more than £300 million.
Am I out of order seeing this scramble for the Eurodollar as obscene? And while we're loosely on the topic of local decisions - how about the new eco-towns on green areas, brought to our attention by Englisch Fyrd:
Mr Shapps said the Conservatives would "always back plans for sustainable eco-communities. But I'm afraid there are several on this list which will cause immediate concern to local people because they're being built on green fields," he added.
... along with the loss of part of Norfolk Broads?
Ron Whitehead of the Flood Protection Association, an industry body, said: "I know of developers who get approval and do as little as possible to comply. There needs to be a performance specification for flood defence - if you have the possibility of this type of flooding you have the following measures.
"Unless the Government closes the loophole, developers will continue to get away with it. If there were building standards, developers would have to take account of flood risk when properties were refurbished, too."
Great to see that planning for what was once England is in such good, selfless hands.
The idea is that it is a phonetic dictionary and so the definitions do not accord with the meanng of the words but with the parts of the words, as sounded. Try these:
6 Antelope................Absconding insect
8 Badinage................Memory, sex, teeth
16 Condescending..........Greek Paratrooper
36 Ideal..........................You shuffle
63 Scintillate..................Nocturnal orgy
68 Surcingle...................Unmarried baronet
One reader has just asked about this post and so I'd best take one of them and dissect it. Antelope - OK, it's an animal. But ant [the pictured insect] ... and he elopes with his girlfriend ... well, the image tickles the fancy. Same with "sin till late". [Chuckle - well I like them anyway.]
“The ship must sail on... regardless of who the captain is, regardless of who the admiral is...”
One should never try to plumb the depths of the Pungeoning for meaning but take the theme for what it is and admire the accompanying graphic work.
This one today is more accessible for us lower ranks - the notion of the ship [state department, commercial organization, arts council or whatever] suffering a series of flawed heads and slowly sinking to oblivion.
It was changes in the Admiralty that led not to mutiny, but desertion by 90% of the crew. The Resbo’s remaining days were helmed by a procession of impotent captains, Queeg-like but without the experience. Needless to say, the lingering skeleton crew had clung to the gunwales, the seas growing fiercer with each successive voyage.
But the end is always inevitable:
EPILOGUE: All of the original crew, and finally Merbos, did eventually jump ship, as one must when fatal leaks and other Benny Suggs go unacknowledged by brass. The Resbo continued to limp along with clueless crews, captains in name only, and admirals who abandoned them to the wind. She was lost at sea about a year later.
This has happened three times with me and one has to wonder how far I contributed to the demise though in subordinate capacity. Certainly I jumped ship on all three occasions. The latest one was by accompanying the Admiral of the time to his new abode, from where we could gaze across and observe the foundering of the old ship under the incompetent newbie, Mr. Arrogance.
I'll say the exact number - 63 - 63 crew departed voluntarily [from 84] , investment then channelled itself through the new agency with its brass and glass penthouse welcome and the old ship, which can never officially sink, still limps along in name only.
Speaking to the Admiral, I asked if he felt vindicated or regretted what had happened. Oh regretted, to be sure. All those years building it up to the point where Europe was visiting - all now gone.
Yes, regret to be sure.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Now, the Wilkins ice shelf on the other side of the peninsula appears to be disintegrating. All these changes would seem to be signs of global warming, but are they just a recent phenomenon or part of a natural cycle?
There is controversial evidence from sediment cores drilled from where the Larsen B Ice Shelf used to be that suggest it may have broken up previously.
"Marine sediments tell us that an ice shelf break-up happened around 5,000 years ago as well. This core will tell us for certain if it got warmer then, too," Dr Mulvaney said. It should also tell him about how the great Antarctic ice sheets began to retreat at the end of the last ice age.
A little more digging and I see that the ONS are saying that the number of teenage conceptions are at the lowest rate for 20 years. You can download the data here.
On the other hand, this seems to tell a different story:
Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. In 2002 there were 39,286 teen pregnancies recorded. The government has spent more than £60 million to tackle the problem but so far failed to halt the rise.
Andrew would say that is old news  and that the government campaign is working. This is why it might be working:
Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found. Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed.
Oh wonderful, wonderful. So children are going to be told they have to do oral sex. Are these people off their collective brains or are they just lost to evil?
Never crossed the government's mind that this is an activity between adults in a marriage? Never occurred to the government to re-establish the family as the unit and work on parents to take responsibility for their children?
Never occurred to the government to adhere to the country's tradition of sane societal values e.g. kids are kids and adults are adults and it's a gradual process from one to the other at ages 16-21 as it most certainly was earlier?
No, the approach of NuLab and it's accolytes in the teaching profession prefer to exacerbate the problem by pleading "well, kids are already doing it." And why are they? Because you people turned a blind eye instead of educating them.
And why did you turn a blind eye? Because you yourself were allowed to adopt stuffed values, in line with being a modern person.
Enough, I say. Quantum shift needed here in the paradigm. Total shift in values required. And from where will it come? The termited C of E? Will it heck as like.
So from where?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
There’s a divisive conflict. There’s a conflict that has people all over the world lining up on one side or the other, declaring one side to be the “good” side, and the other side to be the “evil” side, arguing that the evil side subjects the good side to any number of atrocities, and that the good side deserves to prevail.
I have friends on campus who are rigidly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. They will list Israel’s crimes all day, but turn a blind eye to the equally egregious misdeeds of extremist Palestinian groups like Hamas.
She mentions an incident at her local Christian church:
One church member—a very intelligent, artistic, compassionate sort of man—spent two weeks explaining the central tenets of Islam so that we might better understand our Muslim neighbors. The presentation had a pleasant tone—he explained, for example, why zakat is important to Muslims. He talked about the different sects within Islam and how their beliefs differed. He talked quite a bit about history and the spread of Islam in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
When he was done speaking, another member of the congregation criticized him for looking at Islam through “rose-colored glasses.” He berated him for failing to focus on Islamic extremism, for failing to be alarmed at what he perceived as a dangerous religion. He characterized Muslims as wanting to appear virtuous, but not wanting to actually be virtuous.
Now many of my readers know I'm involved in a Muslim community of bloggers and with one in particular with whom many progressive discussions have taken place over this. I also live in a Muslim republic and deal with Muslims each and every day. Most just go about their day to day lives as most westerners do, with an added sense of personal and societal morality a possible distinction from many of my mates.
The real problem is that the concept of jihad is so misunderstood, even by nominal Muslims. It should be to "struggle in the way of G-d" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society." Jihad is directed against the devil's inducements, aspects of one's own self, or against a visible enemy of the word of G-d.
Now just look at this post and the way I rail against societal evils. One of my Jakarta friends would say to me: "That's jihad, James." Well, if it is, then I'm a mujahid 'cause I'm going to continue railing against those things.
Looking at the real evil in the west which this blog is basically all about [see the micro-control series of posts for an overview - don't google but type "micro control" into the blogsearch top left - 1, 3 and 7 are perhaps the best of them], this, by definition, transcends national boundaries and leads to the completely erroneous conclusion of most Muslims that "America" per se is evil - the Great Satan - and the equally erroneous conclusion of patriotic Americans that blind loyalty to their leaders, e.g. Bush and Co., whom even Alan Greenspan criticized, is the gung-ho way to truth and really good things.
Thus we have a blogger called Great Satan's Girlfriend and that's just craziness. The average American is no more satanic than bambi but he is patriotic and he is loyal to the constitution and the flag. Nor am I anti-American for saying these things and nor is Ruthie anti-American for her post. This is garbage. For myself, over 40% of my readers in the morning are American and you don't get that by being anti-American.
It's the intolerant debate, the non-debate, the polarized, entrenched positions which are the problem. It's the lack of real understanding, esp by the Beslan murderers, the 911 gang, the throat slitters and so on and also by our own side, entrenched in our narrow focus, which is the key issue.
You know that I am an English nationalist but many blogfriends are Scottish. I'm a Christian but hobnob with two Muslim communities. I'm western but live in Russia. This does not make me a relativist or multi-culturalist. I'm still a conservative in values and libertarian in outlook.
But I sure as hell am not going to turn up my nose at good friends in other communities.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Coming back to Iain Dale's distressing report yet again:
* An epidemic of violent crime, teen pregnancy, heavy drinking and drug abuse fuels fears that British youth is in crisis.
* 27% of UK 15 year olds have been drunk 20 or more times compared to 12% in Germany, 6% in Holland and 3% in France
* 44% of UK teenagers are frequently involved in fights compared to 28% in Germany.
* 35% of UK 15 year olds have used Cannabis in the last 12 months, compared to 27% in France, 22% in Holland and 18% in Germany.
* 40% of English fifteen year old girls have had sexual intercourse, compared to 29% in Sweden, 24% in Canada, 20% in Holland, 18% in France and 14% on Spain.
* 15% of English girls fail to use contraception.
* A 2007 UNICEF child welfare study placed Britain bottom of a league table of 21 industrialised countries.
* Between 2003 and 2006 violent crime committed by UK under 18s rose 37%
* Marriage rates in Britain are at a 146 year low.
* Class sizes in Britain are among the highest of 20 Western countries.
* British children start school earlier and take more exams than other European countries.
... we can add Johnathan Pearce's piece at Samizdata [thanks Lord Somber]:
It has been blamed on many things, with varying levels of plausibility: the lack of authority figures that can inspire and instill respect in youngsters, mostly boys; the breakdown of the family and the rising levels of single-parenthood, which in turn is encouraged by perverse incentives, such as the Welfare State.
Throw in a culture that celebrates, or at least does not condemn, yobbery and violence plus the decline of manual labour and lack of outlets for youngsters who are not academically gifted, and you have quite a toxic mix.
... in which Time's piece is mentioned:
None of those indicators are good, but it's the increase in nasty teenage crime that really has Britain spooked. Violent offenses by British under-18s rose 37% in the three years to 2006.
... and the matter is brought home personally to fellow blogger Clive Davis, whose teenage son was assaulted by ASBOs:
My son was attacked - without provocation - on Saturday night. (He told the kids who punched and kicked him that he had a pacemaker, but it didn't make any difference. He was knocked cold in the end, and he's still suffering from concussion.) Yet the officer handling the case didn't plan to interview the main witness - one of my son's friends - until this weekend.
... the lily-livered response by the authorities followed - unbelievable!
We abandoned the moral code we paid lip service to in the 60s, parents went all out for the "self-fulfilling" lifestyle, children were allowed to grow up in a moral vacuum and look at the 22 year olds today - nightmare scenario.
What the F? 14 year old girls having group sex at overnight parties and doing drugs is somehow progressive? Hey, there used to be a thing called fathers protecting their daughters' reputations. Running a good chance of being bashed on the street is onwards and upwards? There used to be such a thing as police jumping on these things. Give me a break.
And some have the nerve to say society's improved.
Tom Paine has commented and it needs to be included in the body of the post here:
The established middle classes refuse to believe the sombre truths evident to those more recently emerged from the working class. No, Hermione, you would NOT get pregnant in order to get a council house. Nor would you keep getting pregnant to maximise your benefits. It would not make sense for you to do so. But if you were unskilled, poorly-educated and your alternative was a part time job at the chip shop, you just might.
If you offer farmers subsidies to grow certain crops, are you surprised if they grow them? We have now subsidised baby-farmers at the margins of our society for three generations - and those margins are widening in consequence. Some of the mothers may - when confronted with the reality of their offspring - actually raise them lovingly. I am sure many do. Nature programmes us to take care of our genes and there are few drives stronger than parental love. But many mothers who conceived with such attitudes do NOT care for their children. That is a terrible fate for the child. Are we really surprised to find feral youths roaming our streets? In their place, mightn't you be angry and vengeful, Hermione?
Our grandparents and parents' generations were naive fools. They visited many ills on us; not least the debts of their unfunded healthcare system, pensions (especially the generous and entirely unfunded pensions of their public employees) and their myriad state benefits. Their worst legacies of all though are the ills fostered by their crypto-marxist ideology and hippy social attitudes - especially to education. Those selfish boomers are now gearing up to check smugly out of their heavily-subsidised existences, leaving us all their messes to deal with.
Recently raiding the tent compound in Athek, my stronghold at an undisclosed location, he made away with 74 concubines and impending children. Not a lot by historical standards, I realize but they eased the aches and pains after a hard day's horse riding in that bloody sand.
So I call on all good people to rise up and help overhrow the usurper [and help me get my women back too, which is the main point of the exercise, truth be told].
Sigh - look at the beautiful landscape - isn't it worth dying for?
The Creature from Jeckyl Island is making it's latest power grab:
The plan would beef up the powers of the Federal Reserve, which earlier this month engineered the purchase of troubled investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan. It would give it greater oversight of all kinds of financial institutions from hedge funds to insurance companies.
"Our current regulatory structure was not built to address the modern financial system,"
said US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "Government has a responsibility to make sure our financial system is regulated effectively. And in this area, we can do a better job."
The government says the proposals are an effort help US firms become more competitive in the global economy. The 218-page report was commissioned before credit markets began to seize up in August last year.
The reactions to this tightening will clearly range from "right, so here we go" to "the Fed's a government body, isn't it?" Capitalist bloggers fall somewhere in between, knowing full well that the Fed is a privately run concern, not only influencing the regulation of markets but also playing in them and yet not willing to accept this thing for what it is.
The long and the short is that the Fed is Morgan and associates, who have a habit of bailing favoured firms out of crises and panics. They control the economy by ostensibly playing the government watchdog whilst at the same time creating the ability to openly play the markets through the FOMC and working closely with Europe.
The reason this is evil is because of all the human misery which has historically attended it, including housing crashes, depressions and war. Either Google the Federal Reserve or search this site and there is considerable material in support of this contention if you look.
They can be stopped if everyone is awake to what's going down but no one sector of society, e.g. the economists, can see the others sides, e.g. depopulation and Eisenhower's military-industrial complex.
There's no one authoritative ombudsman body which can draw all the threads together and see where this is going and why it is.