Archive | Politics & economics

RSS feed for this section

current state of the world, economic theory

They can’t leave it alone, can they?

Please accept when I say that I really had no intention of running anything else on Perry Mason but having just watched, in the past two days, the 3rd last and 2nd last episodes Raymond Burr was ever in [having already watched the last], what we have here is an insight into the way things were turning in cinema and TV by the early 90s.

This is no post about the series or the actor, the notion of quality or not. This is about politics, pure and simple and did they ever come out in these two episodes. In fact, it was rapidly escalating politics.

I’ve already mentioned an earlier episode in which one scene had a martial arts “expert, female” throwing a group of men around. That was bad enough but along with a femme fatale who then proceeded to make the young man employed by Mason, Ken Malansky, look stupid, were all sorts of jibes through the lips of Della Street and Perry Mason, things which were never in any dialogue between the two from the B&W TV series and absent in the earlier telemovies of ’85 to ’90.…

When outside forces impose their ideas on the story

Alien-Abduction-birds

There was an article about a father who let a group of 11 year olds watch Aliens at a sleepover at his house [H/T Chuckles].

The case for “kids can take any amount of sex and violence today”:

Aliens isn’t even all the bad. I think if it were made today it’d probably get something like a PG-13 for the actual violence. The swearing might tip it over, but it’s not that bad a film to show an 11 year old. Half the movies from this long ago are only rate such for language, not for gore, nudity or violence.

Terminator 2 is another prime example. I’d show that to an 11 year old.

The case for the parental right to vet what his child sees:…

Nemtsev

[JH editorial note. I was asked to check the English yet methinks this needs to go out as close to as written as possible. Most “errors” must stay in –  I’ll alter only that, grammatically, which is absolutely necessary to render it comprehensible, mainly punctuation.  This is going to result in a quite Russian style to the post.]

This is quite cynical murder.

Lets check conditions of the murder.

Environment:

1. Where it happened?

Near Kremlin.

2. When it happened?

During walking with Ukranian girl.…

More of the same

clyde's last selfie

1. The “majority of peaceful Muslims” business:

But, a large minority don’t want to live quiet lives. Therein lies the problem facing the West. If we suddenly found that 25% of men with red hair would one day run amok and start murdering people for no reason, we would not let men with red hair walk free. No society could tolerate such a risk. Obviously, long before now we would have either euthanized all red haired babies at birth or maintained a place to exile for all red heads, like an isle of misfit toys. Ginger Island.

2. If faced with this:…

The destruction of heritage by the yahoos

The brief at OoL was that posts, in some way, were connected to the concept of freedom and a natural corollary of that – its limits.

Should burquas be banned? Should smoking in public places? Should there be any bans at all, e.g. people decapitating others in the name of a cause?

And the stance of the blog, namely that there is no real stance beyond live and let live, really comes under severe pressure when it’s clear that some are operating under the rules of comment is free, not to put an alternative point of view but to proselytize and coerce, as one person falsely claimed OoL was trying to do, when in fact they were the ones doing it by curtailing discussion.

There is so much faux claim and counterclaim on this issue and one section of society which has severely pressurized the libertarian is Islam. Below are excerpts from a PJM article on the destruction of thousands of years history by ISIS.…

Why political debate is impossible with the left

One of the constant criticisms by our side of politics is how much consideration is given exploded points of view.

Balance though, I’ve been forced to learn, is a false construct in many areas. For example, someone like us who constantly puts that sexualizing children is one of the sickest by-products of leftism today – something we say on our side of politics – is hardly going to take kindly to someone negating that by constructing and posting an argument that sexualizing children is good. [Hewitt, Harridan].

Oh they wouldn’t put it that way, of course, because Narrative only deals in positive constructs and buzzwords, so that’s called something different, something like “freedom of sex for all” or “showing tolerance” or it’s included under “freedom for all”. That’s how the wormtongues do it.

To give any column space to such things is not just a waste of time but is consciously promoting wrong.…

When one construct attacks another

The internecine fighting on the left would be amusing if it weren’t so ultimately destructive:

Later Sunday evening, Arquette told the press:

“So the truth is, even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface, there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women. And it’s time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”

That’s pretty much Hillary’s argument in the 2016 primaries: she let the black lightweight off easy in 2008, so now, finally, it’s her turn. Right?

And then the trouble started for Arquette.

How dare a white suggest reciprocity? How can some white heterosexual suggest that blacks and gays and gay blacks owe anything to white feminists? And how dare she imply that having a uterus makes her a better woman than all the transwomen out there?

Science versus junk science

An inventor comes out with a new idea – OK, we read about it, see it demonstrated, make up our minds.  But we’re wary when certain alarm bells go off and red flags go up.

1.  I.A. Richards, in Science and Poetry [1926] wrote:

We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcable in his enunciation.  In fact we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

2.

meredith-perry352

Zero hours contracts and other matters

Two quotes for a start from comments threads:

The total Zero Hours contracts in the entire workforce is 696K, of which 125K have been in place since before 2010 (clue when Labour were in power)

That implies a net increase of 570K in zero hours contracts under the coalition, compared to the total job creation of 2m. It’s 25% of new jobs created under this parliament to date being zero hours.

And:…

The vital importance of the Black Sea

Interesting at Reuters, given their pro-EU bias, that they mention the new Russian idea for gas to Europe:

new pipeline option

A closer look at the Black Sea area shows Russia would need to essentially control the Black Sea and key to this is first controlling Mariupol, with friendly regimes in Donetsk and Lugansk, then Crimea, thereafter maintaining friendly relations with Turkey and former satellites.…

Carswell and Farage

Bloggers for UKIP write:

Douglas Carswell has told the media to stop “mischief making” about his relationship with Nigel Farage.

Rumours were circulating yesterday (almost certainly from the anti-UKIP “research” team in CCHQ who have been running the dirty campaign against UKIP since 2013) that there is a rift between Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage.

There’s little doubt that he is being wooed for a switch back to the Tories and I’ve speculated for a long time now that he is the one closest to doing it.  Mischief makers such as Nick Cohen won’t do it as he’s disparaging of Farage with no substance to back up his actionable statements, e.g. in Anorak.…

The natural order of things

skatergirlThis  post seems, to me, to be on a hiding to nothing.  Men couldn’t care less and women of an increasingly virulent type will resent it.

And it’s not sour grapes that no one at all remembered my birthday yesterday [except the two I reminded] and anyway, that was cross-gender and I’m one of the world’s worst for remembering ‘em.

And it’s not that I particularly care in this woman’s case, me being a man ‘n all over here and not a woman ‘n all across the pond but there were two things which tipped the balance in favour of posting:

1.  The principle is a key principle which really must be stated and restated;

2.  I was sent this post today and do earnestly disagree, not with her right to post it, nor with her unrealistic obsession but with the people who put these ideas into her head in the first place, ideas which could only make her unhappy and even start hating, as sure as night follows day.…

It just seems so obvious to me

To say I was appalled would be an understatement:

TV watchdog launches investigation after more than FIVE THOUSAND complaints about ‘biased’ Channel 4 docudrama which imagined a Ukip election win 

You can say it’s reading to much into this headline but it wasn’t the show itself, per se, but this headline, the way it was worded.  The 5000 complaints, to the DM, had something to do with “imagining a UKIP win”. Even in reporting facts, they put spin to it and think they’re being oh so sniggeringly clever.

UKIP have received nothing but trashing from anyone – has any other party received such abuse – it was summed up in one man’s comment:…

The power of the conjunction “and”

You can go the Communist Party way of explaining the world if you like, or my mate’s way when he rails against people discussing whether it’s incompetence or evil intent:

“Why the “or”?” he asks, “surely it’s “and”?”

Or perhaps you prefer the Sa’udi way [H/T haiku].  It seems people are always misreading how the world works.  Or are they?  Is it perhaps some giant theatre, quite easy to understand and yet chilling all the same.  I’ll go into that further down.

Meanwhile, from Chuckles, this little gem from Jordan:…