Some of the atheists who post on this site are some of the dimmest, most malicious, most bigoted people I've ever encountered, and so naturally they pride themselves on their intelligence and liberality.
@ 2012-07-19 – 14:19:11
@ 2012-07-17 – 20:23:08
Tim Worstall is a Thatcherite Conservative and a fan of free trade and globalisation. In response to an article in The Guardian about how Dairy Farmers are being squeezed by the supermarkets and broken on the wheel of EU regulations he penned a response accusing our dairy farmers of being uincompetitive and unable to face the challenges of a free market economy. All he proved is that the left don't have a monopoly on stupid, arrogant twats.
Thatcherite conservatives in the UK and Reaganite Republicans in the USA love to talk of free markets and the utopia they create. But do free markets ever exist. What looks like a free market from above is anything but when viewed from the ground.Policies supposed to protect the efficient have been hijacked by a cartel of food retail chains. Dairy Farmers are being driven to bankruptcy because the"free market" in milk is entirely controlled by the big supermarkets.
READ FULL ARTICLE
Dairy Farmers Ruined: Free Markets Versus Corporate Dictatorship
@ 2012-07-09 – 14:57:25
I told you and so did my friends at The Daily Stirrer. As demand in the west for China's manufactured goods dried up due to falling economic activity in developed nations the Chinese economy would crash.
Well the depth of the recession in western nations might have been disguised by printing money (aka quantitative easing) but that inevitably results in inflation which erodes the value of earnings and savings.
Ergo people have less to spend on cheap tat from China.
So how does that affect us? It means China will have less money to buy the bonds western governments must sell to underwrite the value of the bonds they sell. Which will mean the value of money will fall further. Which will mean peoples' earnings and savings will buy less. Which will mean economic activity will fall further which will mean ... oh you should know how it works by now.
Anybody fancy a weekend break in Weimar?
China heads for deflationary shock
@ 2012-07-07 – 19:18:44
For years I have argued that the internet should accept some form of regulation to the extent only that everything posted ought to be identifiable to a source thus imposing the constraints of normal decency on people and curbing the criminal activity the world wide web has spawned.
You should have heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth from lefties and "yooman rights" campaigners about how this would curtail freedom. if you are familiar with how the left operates and how control freakery comes as naturally to them as sucking on a tit comes to a mammilian baby you might have found this commitment to freedom a bit suspect. After all the only freedom the left have ever been concerned with is their own freedom to Impose their ideals and values on the rest of us (by force if necessary).
It should come as no surprise then that the left's commitment to internet freedom lasted only as long as it took them to come up with a way to get independent websites and blogs off the cybersphere and ensure that we could see ONLY officially approved propaganda. Hat tip to Anna Raccoon for bringing this to my attention.
Last month in a little noticed case in the US, a Federal Judge made a ruling that has implications for us all. We may think that the truly sensitive and the terminally offended have been making inroads into the freedom of the Internet, but they are piffling flea bites compared to the implications of this case.
What the ruling – that the Internet is ‘a place of public accommodation’ – boils down to in plain English is that the Internet has the same status as a Public House, your local council offices, Disneyland, the O2 Arena, and anywhere else you can think of that has to comply with disabled accessibility legislation. It will be your responsibility to ensure that the blind reader has a voice over of your hastily crafted howl of anger at the latest government outrage, that the deaf have suitable sub-titles on your YouTube efforts, and one can only presume, that the terminally stupid have a simplified version in words of one syllable, to ensure that everyone has an ‘enjoyable and enriching experience’ when they land on your blog.
The lawyers are sharpening their quills already, for it matters not that you are penning your anguished prose from a bed sit in Bridlington – your reader may well be a one eyed Albanian asylum seeker in the US, libel law has long since established precedent that if he can access your words in the US, then you are publishing in the US, regardless of where your ‘server’ is.
Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I’m not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers will have a long check list of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.
One common argument for imposing accessibility obligations on physical businesses is that it is unrealistic to expect the disabled to simply ‘go somewhere else’ if the nearest business can’t accommodate their needs. The Internet doesn’t have territorial limitations – by extending this ruling to the Internet, the lawyers are in effect saying that everyone must make every part of their ‘public life’ accessible to anyone who wishes, worLd wide, to partake of the opportunity.
Now I don’t expect this to affect Joe Bloggs blogging from his back room in Bridlington overnight – but it doesn’t require too much imagination to realise that if Google get sued for failing to provide a voice over on their political blogs, they will immediately refuse to host any blog that doesn’t comply. Netfix, the company which the American Association for the Deaf successfully sued for failing to provide sub-titles on the videos which they streamed, may be able to afford the costly technology to comply with this ruling, individual bloggers won’t. Netfix may respond by not hosting movies which don’t carry sub-titles, I would expect Google to take the same route.
Read the full post: Wheelchair access to the blogosphere
Now as Anna says this law willl not be enforced right away to make sure we bloggers, contributors and site owners provide access to a braille translator or a text to voice converter so that your partially sighted visitors can have access to our rants, pithy observations, homilies, philosiphizing, self indulgent rambles and scintillating prose. but once the "yooman rights" brigade find a site that challenges their prejudices and does not conform to these requirements there is not much doubt about which way a court verdict will go.
The answer of course is we can all ignore the law and work on the prinbiciple that they can't put us all in prison. "OK, but what if they decide to put me in prison to make an example of somebody?" you might well ask.
Simples. At the first sign of trouble take your stuff offline. Back it all up and find yourself a host that operates its servers from Andorra, Costa Rica or some such place that does not have any serious libel laws. Pay with your paypal account. Use a proxy server such as Anonymouse and rebuild your website using a pseudonym to disguisE your authorship (something like Aethelred-Naggernunk is good)
Then the "yooman rights" lawyers can spend their time chasing shadows while you concentrte on building links to your site and getting your ideas out to the widest possible audience and promote the cause of free thinking against the dark forces of "progressiveism".
And it is not just the politically correct Thought Police who don't want you on the web ...
Latest Google update favours their own products and sites that pay for traffic
@ 2012-07-04 – 17:09:11
Found this on Annarky's blog today:
Here's an extract:
Politics lags behind the facts. We live in an era of deep technological and economic change that has not been matched by a similar development of public institutions responsible for its regulation. The economy has been globalized but political institutions and democracy have not kept pace. In spite of their many peculiarities, differences and limitations, the protests that are growing all over the world show an increasing discontent with the decision-making system, the existing forms of political representation and their lack of capacity for defending common goods. They express a demand for more and better democracy.
Global welfare and security are under threat. The national and international order that emerged from the end of World War II and the fall of the Berlin Wall has not been able to manage the great advances in technology and productive systems for the benefit of all humanity ...
Now my feeling is that something like this would be too easily usurped by the dark forces pushing the idea of global totalitarian government based on George Orwell's Oligarchic Collectivist system. Democracy would be as meaningful worldwide as it has become in the EU where a democratic vote that goes against what the bureaucrats in Brussels want is simply ignored and the voters are told, "You gave the wrong answer, you must vote again."
Any idea that prompts people to abandon their interia, give up on the Dr, Panglos philosophy that "All Is For The Best In This The Best Of All Possible Worlds" and start thinking about what kind of furure we are handing to our children and grandchildren is worth looking at.
Ah buut then, while I know true Anarchy is a political philosophy that could not work in the real world (like Marxism, socialism, fascism, conservatism and corporatism) I am a classical liberal which is about as close to anarchy as a political system involving gover nment can get.
@ 2012-07-02 – 14:55:25
H M Inspector Of Constabulary has warned that because of the cuts necessary to bring runaway public spending under control before the government deficit takes us into the territory currently occupied by Greece, Spain and Portugal, the boys in blue will no longer be able to protect the public (BBC News Police Service Worsened By Cuts).
Several points occur to Little Nicky about this.
(1) How long it it since the police could be arsed making the streets safe for the old, weak and vulnerable to walk. And if you were beaten up and robbed in your own home how long is it since you could expect any reponse from the police beyond PCSO Tiny Littlebottom coming round on his Raleigh Chopper two days later to give you some leaflets on victiom counseling.
(2)As the many faced beast that is the poliical left start kicking off about this, let us not forget that it was New Labour that decided all crims are victims of society and so the victims of crime are as guilty as the perps. And who was it decided that to dish out penalties appropriate to the severity of their crimes violated their human rights?
(3) As Little Nicky regularly runs up against lefties who yearn for the
New Wold Orderfederalisation of Europe and a totalitarian global government and are wringing their hands, wailing and gnashing teeth at the prospect that we might be heading for a more distant relationship with the New World OrderEuropean Union it is my duty to point out that the £40 million a day we stump up to fund the gravy train riding bureaucrats of Brussels whose fat cattery makes even the greed of the most bastardish banker look positively anorexic could put a lot of coppers on the beat.
(4) The whining of H M Inspector Of Constabulary reflects nothing but self interest from senior coppers. Who was it took officers off the beat and out of patrol cars and put them to work issuing speeding fines, ASBOs and accompanying fines, parking fines, fines for this, fines for that and fines for possessing a threatening beard. The percentage of police officers who are actually assingned to crime fighting and crime prevention is pathetically small. The percentage assigned to revenue collection, bean counting and paper shuffling is gobsmackingly large.
(5) What effing cuts. Not one penny has yet been cut from public spending. Only the planned increases have been cut.