About Me

Name:Greg England
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

On a lighter note

Here I am, on an American blog, practising my 1st Amendment rights ...
Well okay ... technically speaking I don't have 1st Amendment rights.
But is it really necessary for Townhall.com to source local adverts?
 
Especially when they are UK Government adverts reminding me to purchase a licence to watch TV:
  
Photobucket
 
Watch this youtube video, and tell me that it doesn't make you shiver:
 
 
If you enjoyed that, there are plenty more videos on this website: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/mediaandcommunity/mediatvcs.jsp 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lord of the Flies

Another teenager has been stabbed to death in Britain: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229348/Ben-Kinsella-murder-Stabbing-'motivated-by-jealousy'.html

That makes 17 teenagers killed in London this year so far.  Of course, where violent crime is concerned, there is no shortage of liberals who wish to 'understand' the root causes:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/why+kids+kill/1400747
"Dispatches discovers the main cause of fighting is not bloodlust so much as boredom. Teenagers blame their violence on a lack of youth facilities or being able to reach the ones that do exist as they are outside their gang's territory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6464853.stm
"I think it's a problem in London that's caused by the huge disparity in wealth" 

Do I have to explain just how disgusting these lines of reasoning are?
I'm not for one minute suggesting that life isn't tough for some of these people.  But they are not the only ones who have to deal with adversity.  And if we wring our hands when confronted with evil, what are we saying to the rest of those noble souls, who prefer to make the best of their circumstances without turning to violence because they are "bored" ...

So let me say this right here, right now, with absolute confidence:
I don't give a damn about the "people" who killed Ben Kinsella.  And neither should you.
 

Get this:
 
Regardless of whether you believe that an ex-young offender should be permitted to train as a doctor, how does this sit with the previous discussion?  In the UK, if you commit a crime, the liberal newspapers are full of idiot columnists making excuses for your behaviour.  Maybe you had a bad childhood.  Maybe it's the poverty, or the deprivation.
 
But woe betide you if you get off your backside and try to turn your life around.  Oh no, no no!
 
It's almost as if these people want a permanent underclass ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top Gear

I was reading Pajamas Media (http://pajamasmedia.com/) ...

.... and I found a link to this website (
http://thenakedemperor.blogspot.com/2008/06/delightful-failure.html) ...

.... which linked to this video .... which is an excerpt from the British TV programme Top Gear ...
 
Oh, just watch the video:  
 
 

To explain Jeremy Clarkson's comment wrt. US gas prices (which I appreciate are expensive):

UK Petrol Price = £1.17 per litre
There are 3.7854 litres in 1 US gallon.
There are $1.9648 in £1
 
US equivalent price = 1.17 × 3.7854 × 1.9648 = $8.70 per gallon
 
Jeremy Clarkson's suggestion to buy a Golf diesel car suddenly makes a lot of sense ....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bone through the nose

Ecologist: Hello, I'm an ecologist.
Economist: Hi, pleased to meet you I'm sure.
 
Ecologist: I am looking for a new kind of economics .... erm, can you help me?
Economist: Sure, take a seat. Now tell me, what is it you are after?
 
Ecologist: Well, for a start I'm worried about the state of the planet, global warming and all that ... I was thinking about raising taxes ...
Economist: Whoa! Steady on. Look, why don't you tell me your concerns, and let me do the economics.
 
Ecologist: Okay then.
Economist: Fire away.
 
Ecologist: I want a system that enourages people to be careful with the world's resources.
Economist: (writing this down) careful allocation of resources ...
 
Ecologist: I also want people to be energy efficient, and highly productive when they do use energy so as not to waste it.
Economist: ... energy efficiency and productivity ...
 
Ecologist:  I want people to be open minded enough to try new things.
Economist:  ... entrepreneurial system ...
 
Ecologist: And I want the system to produce things that people actually need, and not to waste energy creating junk that nobody wants.
Economist: ... consumer demand.
 
Ecologist: Have you got all that?
Economist: Yes I have. You want a system that rewards energy efficiency, that makes best use of the world's resources, that is geared towards rewarding efficient production, that makes things in response to consumer demand and not just because some committee tells them to, and provides signals to consumers when supplies are in short supply to discourage them from overconsumption.
 
Ecologist: That's sounds about right. What do you have in mind? I've tried living on a commune and ploughing a field using horse and cart, but I want to expand the concept on a global scale.  I'm a bit worried about sustainability though ...
 
Economist: Have you thought about free market capitalism?
Ecologist: (spluttering) .... but ... but .... Bush ... Blair ... CO2 ... Iraq ... good intentions hijacked by liberalism ...
 
Economist: Because in the whole of human history, nobody has ever come up with a more efficient system for the intelligent allocation of the world's resources in the face of scarcity.
 
Well ... I can always dream, can't I?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spot the missing candidate

 
Most households in the UK have access to digital television, either by satellite or by terrestrial broadcast.
Here's what the BBC had to offer this morning, in the way of In Depth news profiles using this service:
 
(I have sharpened the relevant area of the screen)
  
Photobucket
 
That's right, your eyes are not deceiving you.
 
The BBC provides profiles for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ... but no profile for John McCain.
 
(1) Given that the drive-by media and the Democrats chose John McCain, why haven't the Beeb given him a profile?
(2) Given that the drive-by media has already chosen Barack Obama as the winning candidate ... why does it still have a profile for Hillary Clinton?
(3) Given that the drive-by media secretly hates John McCain, why not create a profile that rubbishes him?
 
Some consistency please from the liberal propaganda machine!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mask Slips ...

... and they reveal their true nature:
 
On Monday night, British TV (Channel 4) will host a documentary entitled:  Life after people

Here's the press release in their own words:
 
"What would happen to Planet Earth if the human race were to suddenly disappear forever? Would ecosystems thrive? What remnants of our industrialised world would survive? What would crumble fastest? From the ruins of ancient civilisations to present day cities devastated by natural disasters, history gives us some clues to these questions."
 
I have just one question:
 
If we are just another animal, why do environmentalists keep fantasizing about our extinction?
 
 
Post Blog Note
Take a deep breath and read this: 
 
How does one go about claiming asylum in the USA?
 
Another post blog note:
Read this if you have a strong stomach:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (30) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I know just how he feels

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The drive-bys always get it wrong - Part Two

In today's Daily Telegraph I discover the following headline.
 
Starbucks is facing a boycott from a group of Christian activists in America
who claim the coffee chain's new logo is vulgar.
 
But wait ... it's the drive-by media remember.  Further investigation is required.
 
Internet search reveals the following link:
 
And finally, a link to the "Christian" website which quite frankly scares the hell out of me:
http: // www . the res ista nce man ifes to . com /
 
(I have put spaces in the domain name, to prevent it becoming a link. 
You can visit it if you want ...  but I wish I hadn't clicked on it).
 
This has nothing to do with mainstream Christianity (the group only has 3000 people in it!!!)
 
However, if you haven't done the internet research, all you will remember from this Telegraph story is that some Christians in America are protesting about the boobies on cups of Starbucks.  Must be Dubya's fault.  Those crazy Christian fundies!
 
Click on the Huffington Post link, and you will find the usual suspects banging on about the Christian right.
 
There's hope though, because even some of the bloggers on the Huffington post have seen through the ruse, and have complained about this misrepresentation.
 
Thank God for that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The drive-bys always get it wrong - Part One

The UKs Daily Telegraph wrote an article entitled:
 
"Mark your wives: The 1930s marriage test"
 
The article states that "American psychologists have unearthed a 'marital rating scale' used by marriage counsellors in 1939 to assess the performance of wives - and the categories make interesting reading for modern couples brought up to believe in the equality of the sexes"
 
It then contains an embedded image, which is a set of questions that a husband is supposed to use to mark his wife.  The questions are typical of the time e.g. "a good hostess - even to unexpected guests" or "has meals on time"
 
However, the article is a misrepresentation of the truth ... a half-truth.
You see, buried deep within the article is the phrase "The test was designed to be answered either by husbands or their wives themselves ..."  One of the commenters on the blog, posted links to the questions that the husbands are supposed to answer:
 
These include questions like:
 
"Helps wife with dishes, caring for children, scrubbing"
"Leaves car for wife on days she may need it"
 
This is disgraceful.
The Daily Telegraph wrote this article in an attempt to portray the 1930s as a dark age, full of male chauvinist pigs.  But when you read the questions that the men have to answer, you come away with the impression that 1930s marriage counsellors viewed marriage as a partnership between men and women. 

In other words, the article is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth. 
But it gets worse.  Much worse.
One of the commenters on the site, complained about the Telegraph only publishing the "the wife's chart and not the husbands" stating that "not much progress has been made in attitudes to women!"
 
So let's get this straight.
A respected UK conservative broadsheet newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, writes a misleading article designed to manipulate the reader into an anti-male viewpoint, and one of the women who read the article thought that the Daily Telegraph was being sexist against women.
 
What hope do we have when liberals get it so utterly, utterly wrong?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conspiracy

I am not specifically targetting the Daily Telegraph, but even this right-wing UK journal is falling for liberal lies.
 
You can find me on these blogs, trying to correct matters:
 
Here's Rush clarifying matters in his inimitable style:
Now I don't care whether you agree with Ann Coulter's opinions or Rush Limbaugh's opinions.
They are ultra-conservative, so I don't expect everyone to agree with them.
In that case, I respect you if you provide an alternative analysis and set of opinions.
 
But that's not what the mainstream media does.  The mainstream media consistently gets it wrong.
I don't believe that this is incompetence.  I believe that it is deliberate.

It is objective proof that there is a conspiracy to misrepresent Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
 
Because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh provide clarity wrt. a large range of issues, including international affairs and foreign policy.  And there are plenty of vested interests out there ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Open letter to Rush Limbaugh

---- BEGIN TRANSMISSION ----

To:  Rush Limbaugh, C-in-C USOC
From:  Greg England, UK Observer
Time:  2008-03-05 16:30Z
Subject:  Operation Chaos - International Objectives
Classification:   <EAT BEFORE READING>

BACKGROUND
==========
Ever since the Democrats infiltrated the GOP primaries and helped to elect a RINO candidate, el-Rushbo has been leading a counter-attack called Operation Chaos.
 
Operation Chaos has Republican voters crossing over to the Democrat primaries in order to strengthen Hillary's position.  This provides the Clinton team with the opportunity to attack Obama politically.

The primary objectives are to prolong the Democrat Uncivil War, and hence weaken both candidates so that the GOP can win in November.

LATEST INTELLIGENCE REPORT
==========================
A recent reconnaisance operation has uncovered an international informal movement of Obama supporters:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/beerforbarack/CjQs
 
This movement consists of foreign nationals and US ex-pats who have declared an interest in Obama's electoral victory.  The website clearly states that this is an 'Informal Movement' that is NOT affliated to official Obama campaign.
 
Given that there is an international movement in favour of an Obama victory, it begs the question as to whether the next phase of Operation Chaos will need to be fought on foreign soil.
 
---- END TRANSMISSION ----

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I am not a liberal - reason 13576B-354-234/A

I have just watched an excellent first part of a documentary by the BBC, entitled:

Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts
 
The basic premise is that six young westerners get to see how the other half live, by working in some Indian factories manufacturing clothes for a pittance.  They start off in a clean factory (working extremely hard) but then end up in miserable conditions, sleeping on the floor between jobs (etc.) 
 
Now I'm all for this.  It's good for young people to learn how the world works, and to learn to count their blessings.
 
But as this is the Beeb, here's the catch.
 
The website associated with the programme, is hosted on a website that deals in eco-fashion.  Clothes made out of hemp and bamboo, clothes made out of old garments, clothes made out of scraps of old clothes, shwopping parties where people exchange their cast offs ... necklaces made out of old magazines.
 
How exactly does all this liberal nonsense feed these poor people?
 
Furthermore ... given that the participants didn't even earn enough money to buy goods in the local Indian shop, just how far down the payscale were they by Indian standards?
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save the planet ... but screw you!

Environmentalists are always banging on about rising CO2 levels and associated rising sea levels.

"Millions of people will perish if we don't do something now" they say.
"Fine" I say, accepting their premise.  "Let's build lots of nuclear power stations"

The conversation draws to a close.
 
Why is that?  S
urely, if your one big project is to save human life through reducing manmade CO2, you should be jumping for joy because the problem already has a solution:  Nuclear Power.  Yet the greens ignore this option, and instead make stupid suggestions that are designed to make my blood pressure rise:
  • Change your light bulbs
  • Take shorter showers
  • Take the bus to work
  • Build lots of windmills

I have heard some conservatives suggest that global warming is a scam, designed to validate failed liberal policies by introducing an artificial world wide crisis that can only be solved through direct government intervention.

Yet the truth is far, far more sinister than that.

By denying humanity the benefits of the technology that could secure all their future energy needs, environmentalists are disclosing their true agenda, which is:
 
'Save the planet ... but screw you!'
 
In their universe, they are happy to sacrifice the futures of millions of people on the anti-nuclear altar, because nothing matters more than pristine nature.  In fact it's already happening.  Rising oil prices.  Land that should be used for growing food crops, given over to useless biofuels.
 
But at least we are saving the planet (and we are creating an artificial population/food crisis in the process, to be 'solved' by a future generation of enviro-wackos).
 
Post blog note:
 
It would be like having a worldwide AIDS crisis, and having PETA step in at the last minute to prevent the use of a life saving vaccinne because it had been tested on animals.  Now I don't like vivisection any more than you do.  But here's a thought experiment for you, worthy of a future blog:

If you develop a cancer drug for dogs ... is it wrong to test it on animals?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Charity begins at home

Today my mother walked into a charity shop, and spent the equivalent of $12.  The charity workers served her with gratitude and respect, and she left the shop with a spring in her step.
 
Well of course that didn't happen.

The
charity workers treated her with contempt, because she dared to ask for a carrier bag large enough to put her purchases in.  Presumably they are under the impression that later
on this evening my mother intends to swim out into the Atlantic ocean, and stuff the carrier bag into a passing dolphin's mouth.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nationalised Health care anyone?

Get your head around this story:
 
Quote:
Laura Ashworth, 21, was prepared to become a "living donor" for her mother Rachel Leake, 39, who has kidney failure. But she died from an asthma attack before the transplant could happen.  As a signatory to the NHS Organ Donor Register, her kidneys and liver were given to three patients on the official UK Transplant waiting list two days after her death. 
 
A key ethical principle of the current "undirected deceased donation" system is that neither the donor nor their family can choose who receives their organ when they die. 

This applies even if an individual had expressed such a wish while alive by starting the process of becoming a living donor.

I agree that if you sign up to be an NHS organ donor, then it should be the NHS who decide who gets your donated organs on the basis of clinical need.  I also agree that unless you have made a formal request to decide who to donate your organs to (e.g. through a living will) then the NHS should decide who gets your donated organs on the basis of clinical need.

But if you have expressely wished that your organs are donated to a particular individual (e.g. a family member), then why on earth shouldn't your choice be honoured?
 
Here's what the libs say in response to this (also from the article):
"We do not want it to become the thin end of the wedge. For example if someone only wants to donate to a person of the same religion - where do you draw the line?"
Yet again we have liberals using demagogic arguments.  The arguments are cunningly logical, and we could spend all night discussing the management of the UK Transplant register.

But it's yet another liberal red herring.

We are not talking about a daughter wanting to donate her organs to Catholics.  We are talking about a daughter wanting to save the life of her mother.  But because of liberal ideology that cares about the collective (and crushes the individual) we end up in a situation where it is illegal to give someone a part of your body after death unless the government decides who benefits.
 
That's not medicine.  That's socialism.

Pro-abortion campaigners are always banging on about how it's their body, and their right to choose.
 
But in a national health system, your body belongs to the state ... even when you die.
 
 
Post blog note:
I have since discovered that the rules in at least one Florida hospital are somewhat different:
 
Quote:
Q. Can I specify who will get my organs and tissues?
A. Yes. You can leave your organs and tissues to specific people (if they meet medical criteria), but you may not leave organs and tissues to a specific race, creed, religion, etc.
Exactly.  If Americans can get the ethics right, why can't the UK.
 
This paragraph makes a mockery out of the reasons that UK NHS libs were giving for refusing to allow someone to donate to a specific individual.  Thin end of the wedge my ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »