Click to get your own widget

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Recent Links

  Admitted that there have been 1,500 accidents and 4 deaths in British windfarms over the last 5 years. That is 4 more than at Fukushima ; twice as many as have happened, worldwide, over the last 20 years, in the nuclear industry; 8% of all the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which is worse than even the theoretically worst accident possible with modern reactor designs. On the other hand it is only 12% of the deaths in the recent outbreak of e-colli in a German organic farm.

  That is why every remotely honest broadcaster and newspaper gives hundreds of times more space to stories about windfarms being dangerous than nuclear reactors, and thousands more to organic farms. But only every singer honest one.
  And talking of wholly corrupt Fascist broadcasters Christopher Booker has done well researched and footnoted report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation showing how corrupt the BBC is.

   Not reported by the BBC
 Anthony Jay creator of Yes Minister (mentioned many times by me) has also damned the BBC and explained how they censor and lie without technically lying.  "If you believe in a free country and a free press, why do we have a state broadcasting system at all?’ he said.
We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all these techniques still being regularly used forty seven years after I left the BBC.
  Cameron says of the refusal to sign the new EU treaty "It is not easy when you are in a room where people are pressing you to sign up to things because they say it is in all our interests....‘I cannot do that, it is not in our national interest, I don't want to put that in front of my parliament ” which shows that, ignoring his claims to acting out of principle, that he knows he couldn't get his party top vote it through. Had half his backbenchers not voted for a referendum he would not have done that. Had over 100,000 people not signed the e-petition producing that debate and many thousands of individuals not written/emailed/phoned their MPs to get them to stand up and had all the Tory MPs not known that UKIP were able to pick up thousands of votes in their constituencies that rebellion would not have succeeded.

   Occasionally, even in our "democracy", ordinary citizens can have an effect.

The Euro default is not so new, nor the nor so much the end of the world, nor need it be stopped by a common currency.

WSJ article on the 1841 default by 8 American states. It did reduce the creditworthiness of all state governments but the US (and British banks who had put up most of the money) survived it.
Spiked on how Scotland's "anti-sectarian" law is simply an attack on both freedom of speech  and the football loving working classes by Scotland's unconnected political elite.
More fraud by global warming alarmists - this time to fake a rise in sea level.
In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

  LudDims boasting of how donations have risen from "£571,715 in the third quarter of 2006" to "£1,199,623 between July and September this year".

  Perhaps this is because of some unnoticed great rise in the party's real popularity, or because the economy is growing so well that people have more money to give away. If not the only other explanation I can think of it that at least half of all donations to parties are because the donors are buying access to those in power and the LudDims, hated as they now are, didn't have a sniff of power before. I don't like the idea of parties being funded by government on the basis of the votes they get. On the other hand I much less like the idea of them being funded by businesses, lobbyists and individuals buying the friendship of lawmakers. I love to hear of a 3rd option.

  American Democrat party strategy seems to be fixed on getting the votes of the non-employed and the civil servant class, having lost a majority of the workers and just geting to get out the loyal vote. In Britain the "workers party" seems equally intent on ignoring the remaining workers, on the other hand so do the Tories, particularly in Scotland. Call it forward to basics.
Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.