A Place to Stand

Young George W. Bush once worked on a sheep farm in Scotland and was mistaken by an American tourist as a "little Scottish boy."

The president disclosed his presence in Scotland as a youth in talking to European journalists during a round-table interview on Friday looking ahead to his Europe trip next week.

Bush pointed out the Group of Eight summit of industrialized nations this year would be in Scotland.

He added: "I worked there as a 14-year-old kid. I left Texas for Scotland to work on a sheep farm. And I'm riding a bike, taking this one sheep, you know, from here to there and I said OK, fine, and a big tour bus stops. And they got off and a woman with a Texas accent said, 'look at the little Scottish boy.'"

Bush, who himself has a Texas twang, said he

REUTERS Whether true or not (US Presidents tend to have a lot of homelands since they get the homeboy votes) it does show a welcome sense of humour about his constituents.

Letter in today's Scotsman. The first letter from former Tayside Tory MP Bill walker is also excellent on the subject of windmills:

According to Mark Ruskell (Platform 15 January) "the debate on whether climate change is real or not is over". He isn’t far from correct, if not in quite the way he suggests. The research used to scare us into supporting Kyoto, by "proving" that global temperatures had flatlined for a millennium until rising rapidly in the past few years, has been discredited. It was based on faulty calculations which would have given the same graph from almost any input figures. The author is even refusing to make the rest of his calculations public - thus entirely removing them from the realm of testable science.

Furthermore, there is still a legitimate debate on whether the rise, approximately 1C over the past century, will continue, whether it is caused by mankind, sunspot activity or something else and whether an increase of that level is a good thing for us or not.

The increase in CO² levels is almost certainly beneficial, as it allows crops to grow better.

Clearly, history will look back on the Kyoto process with the same bemusement we have when we read that in 1975 Newsweek claimed there was a "unanimous" scientific consensus that we were heading for a new ice age.

This was in reply to a guest editorial by Green MSP Mark Ruskell saying how we all have to give up fire if we don't want a catastrophe. Since the cost of Kyoto is approximately $800 million a day & the alleged benefit a cut of 8 millionths of a degree a day (see www.junkscience.com)

I got this through Greeniewatch which is a rather useful site pointing out the inanities of greenery. It has a very interesting article dated 11th Feb about a company whose major running expense is lobbying & campaign donations & actually running their government subsidized business costs less. Of course in the UK we would never have such a free-market conflict since organisations like Scottish Renewables, the Carbon Trust etc which spend large amounts trying to sell greenery are fully funded by the government they are trying to lobby.

Anyway the article was about how, since keeping out Mexicans is a genuine issue the US government have passed a really draconian law to prevent greens using the courts, etc to slow building. I commented that the law says:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."


I hope the green lawyers arn't any better than the government ones - for this to mean what it is supposed to mean it should be phrased


"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines MAY PREVENT expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

The law as quoted actually prevents the suspension of rules which would allow expeditious construction of the fence. It may be that elsewhere in the Act it is properly spelled out but considering that America is so notoriously over-lawyered it does seem a remarkable piece of drafting.

This is another letter I did in reply to an article on Milosevic. I have "milosevic trial" on Google News as on my favourites list so I get a lot of repedative stuff (when you see 30 entries for articles around the world which are word for word the same, though a couple of headlines may be changed, you can see how independent the world's media is. Anyway this article appeared in the Jewish World Review saying the usual lies about Milosevic so I sent the undernoted letter to them.

Naturally they didn't print it.

Then I noticed the author had also sold it to the San Francisco Chronicle.

They aren't interested in dissenting views either.

Because it was originally aimed at a Jewish mag I have used Jewish sources & concerns to refute the case. As I believe I said elsewhere I have written letters on a number of controversial subjects which have a very high publication rate. Only on Yugoslavia is it quite clear that inconvenient facts will virtually never get published (even when I got published it has tended to be when I slip it in as part of another discussion):

Dear Editor,
The situation regarding the ex-Yugoslav wars is much less one sided than Ms Saunders believes or the Nato funded war crimes court pretends to believe.

If she thinks that the Serbs are getting off easily she should look at their enemies. Although, after their deaths, the "court" announced that there had been a case against both Croatia's Tudjman & the Bosnian fundamentalist Moslem leader Izetbegovic no attempt to indict them was ever made. Izetbegovic was on record prior to the war as calling for the genocide of all Bosnia's non moslem communities (not surprising since he was a former auxiliary in Hitler's SS). PR company Ruder & Finn may have sold Tudjman to various Jewish organisations but it is a matter of record that he believed that "genocide is commanded by the word of the Almighty to spread the one true Faith (ie Catholicism)" & that "Hitler's new European order can be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews". The genocide & start of the ethnic cleansing of 560,000 Serbs living in in territory claimed by Croatia was the first such act in those wars according to the Weisenthal Centre.

As regards the Srebrinica affair there is considerable evidence that the bodies are not those of moslem soldiers but of Serb civilians & children. The bodies were found near villages where it is undeniable that the moslem commander of Srebrinica, Nasir Oric, engaged in such massacres, because he showed western journalists videos of his killings from his extensive home video collection. Oric is currently awaiting trial, not for genocide, but for removing the teeth of Serb men without anaesthetics. Regretably western reporting has been extremely one sided. For example no UK newspaper reported the newsworthy statement of Lord Owen, author of the Vanc-Owen plan, that Milsevic was the "only leader who consistently supported peace" & a man to whom "any form of racism is anathema" on oath during Milosevic's "trial".

Not all victims of the "trials" are Serb. "The only moslem leader interested in peace" (Owen) & the only leader whose support crossed ethnic lines Fikret Abdic, who took up arms against the al Quaeda forces supplied to Izetbegovic, is currently serving 20 years. He was convicted, with western help in a Croatian Nazi court in a manner which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Nazi War Crimes trial". Of course, by the precedent of Nuremberg, planning an aggressive war is a war crime but the Nato funded "court" have not investigated who started the Kosovo war.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig

Apparently a hospital in the US have found a new strain of AIDS. Thus

Normally HIV can take up to 10 years before it develops into Aids, but the new strain damages the immune system at a far greater rate, so it becomes Aids within a couple of months.

When AIDS was first known about in the early 80s we were told that everybody who got the HIV virus was going to quickly develop AIDS & die within months. AIDS was, we were assured a disease caused by the HIV retrovirus (part of a family of virii) & that the only ways of stopping it were (1) finding a vaccine, (2) giving up non-monogamous sex (3) waiting till the susceptible population are overwhelmingly unavailable (with most diseases this happens when most people have had it & recovered & thus immunised - for AIDS we are told no recovery is possible).

In fact the preponderant balance of evidence is that the whole AIDS industry is a lie. That AIDS is not & never was caused by the HIV virus. Instead it is caused by stressing your immune system by consuming large amounts drugs, male sperm (in men) or foreign blood. This is the only thing that can explain the disease almost wholly limiting itself to those groups rather than engaging in geometric growth throughout the entire population, as the laws of mathematics say will happen with any communicable disease.

If you are interested in more on this try www.virusmyth.com

There are a number of double-blind tests & surveys which could be made relatively cheaply to prove or disprove the theory. While there are billions available for research on medicines for AIDS (many of which are extremely toxic & if used on healthy people would kill as many healthy people as those previously healthy people who officially die from AIDS while taking such medicines), the thousands required for testing are unavailable.

If I am wrong on this then in a couple of years we will be being told either that this new strain of retrovirus is not more dangerous than the old one or at least that it takes a couple of years to develop into AIDS. Over the last 20 years the official maximum time it takes for HIV to turn into AIDS has been going up 1 year with every year that passes.

Before anybody asks - AIDS is not identified in Africa by proving "positive" on an HIV test, but merely by declaring that anybody who is ill, suffering from malnutrition etc, is AIDS positive. This explains how the existence of an "epidemic" can be "proven".