I thought I'd investigate a bit more about the Taliban and the opium poppy. This is going to be a long hard slog seeing as we've got cretins running the war (politicians that is!).
Nice piece from the New York Times by James Risen. "Donald H. Rumsfeld and military leaders also played down or dismissed growing signs that drug money was being funneled to the Taliban, the Pentagon officials said." One has to wonder what use Rumsfeld was to the American people. A man who shook hands with Saddam Hussein once and really thought the war in Iraq could help his oil baron buddies!
"The eradication program is rife with corruption. Farmers know they must offer bribes to avoid having their crops destroyed, American and Afghan drug officials said. It is often only those who lack money or political connections whose fields are singled out." Is this war being waged in your name? Perhaps the British Army could march into Downing Street and remove the hapless Brown?
Here's how the slow progress at destroying the poppies is done. One man and a tractor! Sounds like a title for a BBC show.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Brown is no leader!
Gordon Brown is the last man to defend the interests of the fighting soldier. He tells the House of Commons - "The British armed forces are better equipped today than they have been at any time in 40 years but we are not complacent". Are they better equipped? Perhaps they are compared with the squaddies of 1969.However are they properly equipped? The answer is NO!
Gordon Brown also implies that the war in Afghanistan is to prevent terrorism on the streets of London. This is nonsense and a cheap smokescreen. The Taliban, however ghastly they may be in our eyes, have no desire whatsoever to be strutting the streets of London. What the Taliban are is a group of malcontents quite capable of using the drug trade to further their fantasies.
Our war is one against Al-Qaeda (or Alkie Ada as Gordon Brown calls them). These are the terrorists, the murderers and the psycopaths. They wander freely around the Arabian penisular and drift in and out of Pakistani villages at will.
If we are going to war, let's really understand who the enemy is first. And if the Taliban is so well equipped themselves, they must be exchanging something for weapons. That something is opium. When is the spraying of the poppy fields going to start?
If we hadn't bombed German munition factories during Word War II we'd have had all manner of stuff land on us. Get rid of the poppy fields and you cut the Taliban off at the pass!
Private schools - public scandal!
New Labour is a body of people given to bouts of control freakery, petty jealousies and a cavalier attitude to tradition. In fact, tradition is a dirty word in their vocabulary. Another thing this New Labour regime is fond of doing is sneaking in contentious legislation as a hidden-away clause in a bill that is designed for totally different legislation. That's why retired colonels, teachers, political activists, anyone campaigning or complaining can find themselves banged up in a police cell under terrorism laws. And the real hook-handed terrorists get to run rings round the likes of the useless Jack Straw.New Labour had the public schools in its sights. It has got the Charity Commission to show the world that public schools (private in the UK!) can "demonstrate how they bring real benefit to the public". If not, all manner of measures will be taken against them. Now these independent schools in England are protesting about "too narrow" rules for charitable status - as two out of five test-case schools fail to qualify under the testing.
I know there has always been an ongoing argument/discussion about children being educated privately. But this is a sneaky New Labour ploy to encourage their social engineering fantasies. Of course, most of the New Labour front bench are walking talking hypocrites, no greater one of which is Harriet Harman, who would sniff mightily at the thought of her children going any where near the local school. Same went for Tony Blair, who moved heaven and hell to fix it for his kids. They are the last people on this planet to moralise seeing that their moral compasses have long since ceased to meet any scientific purpose.
So we could get the situation of several of the smaller private schools closing. Far from being a benefit to children from a less fortunate background, the state system will be increased by an influx of children requiring education at the hands of Ed Balls. The costs on the public purse of such increased demand will far outweigh the benefits of any charitable status change. They never think things through properly. Any casual viewing of the debates in the House of Lords on BBC Parliament will confirm how utterly devoid of logic this current government is.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tennessee gun totin' and shootin' from the lip!
In Carry On Cowboy Joan Sims wanders down the stairs of her saloon and saunters over to the bar. She informs the sheriff that "I don't allow no shootin' at my place" whereupon sheriff Sid James says, "Lady, I would't dream of shootin' at your place!".
No such restrictive warnings in the State of Tennessee. Amidst all the pycho shootings and gun waving that goes on in the USA, you'd think commonsense would say that guns in the hands of the uninitiated is not a good idea. Swivelled-eyed marksmen like Dick Cheney will, however, be encouraged to venture out with pistols at dawn. Tennessee is changing its gun laws this week. It is relaxing them!
Soon, Tennessee's bars and restaurants will no longer be off-limits for registered weapons. So any sassy saloon owner can say to the patrons "I DO allow shootin' at my place!". This is all because the 250,000 registered gun owners in Tennessee want to have the extra freedom to exchange bullets whilst drinking. Boy, what a barking mad world it is.
Americans keep on about the right to bear arms as if this is a personal right to run around with sub-machine guns blasting anyone they assume to be a criminal. It's a kind of judge-and-jury package wrapped up in a gun. Of course, the right to bear arms means no such thing. It comes from the right of the local citizenry to hold arms so as to defend the local community against marauders and armed intruders in situations where the army or local police were not available. The founding fathers would have been horrified by the actions of lawmakers in Tennessee. However, any proper understanding of the notion of arms-bearing to benefit the local community has been wiped aside. On June 26 last year the Supreme Court of the United States held that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. In my opinion, a retrograde step. So we now have legalised shooters, some no doubt of the Dick Cheney trigger-happy kind, able to take a decision to kill.
In Britain, the right to bear arms was general until the idea of a police force came about. The only person left in the kingdom with the vaguest hint of a private army is the Duke of Atholl and even his Atholl Highlanders are reduced to parading with just pipes and drums. The UK has an unarmed police force for general policing. The United States does not. Even with the arsenals that the local police chiefs have at their disposal, it is still seen as a right to have a gun.
All that said, I shall not be put off visiting Tennessee. It is a lovely state, well worth everything that the people have to offer. It's just that I may have to duck rapidly in any bar that has the misfortune to have a gunfight in it whilst I'm sipping my Jack Daniels!
No such restrictive warnings in the State of Tennessee. Amidst all the pycho shootings and gun waving that goes on in the USA, you'd think commonsense would say that guns in the hands of the uninitiated is not a good idea. Swivelled-eyed marksmen like Dick Cheney will, however, be encouraged to venture out with pistols at dawn. Tennessee is changing its gun laws this week. It is relaxing them!
Soon, Tennessee's bars and restaurants will no longer be off-limits for registered weapons. So any sassy saloon owner can say to the patrons "I DO allow shootin' at my place!". This is all because the 250,000 registered gun owners in Tennessee want to have the extra freedom to exchange bullets whilst drinking. Boy, what a barking mad world it is.
Americans keep on about the right to bear arms as if this is a personal right to run around with sub-machine guns blasting anyone they assume to be a criminal. It's a kind of judge-and-jury package wrapped up in a gun. Of course, the right to bear arms means no such thing. It comes from the right of the local citizenry to hold arms so as to defend the local community against marauders and armed intruders in situations where the army or local police were not available. The founding fathers would have been horrified by the actions of lawmakers in Tennessee. However, any proper understanding of the notion of arms-bearing to benefit the local community has been wiped aside. On June 26 last year the Supreme Court of the United States held that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. In my opinion, a retrograde step. So we now have legalised shooters, some no doubt of the Dick Cheney trigger-happy kind, able to take a decision to kill.
In Britain, the right to bear arms was general until the idea of a police force came about. The only person left in the kingdom with the vaguest hint of a private army is the Duke of Atholl and even his Atholl Highlanders are reduced to parading with just pipes and drums. The UK has an unarmed police force for general policing. The United States does not. Even with the arsenals that the local police chiefs have at their disposal, it is still seen as a right to have a gun.
All that said, I shall not be put off visiting Tennessee. It is a lovely state, well worth everything that the people have to offer. It's just that I may have to duck rapidly in any bar that has the misfortune to have a gunfight in it whilst I'm sipping my Jack Daniels!
Stormy Daniels keeps on storming!
I was wondering what was happening with the Stormy Daniels campaign for the US Senate seat in Louisiana. I found the Team Stormy site and they report that on July 2nd and 3rd, she swept through Lafayette, Shreveport and Delhi (not the one in India!) on the second leg of her Louisiana listening tour. A video from Stormy’s stop in Shreveport, where she dined with patrons of the world-famous Southfield Grill, is shown below.
Two things I noticed. People are beginning to take her seriously, which suggests honesty and straight talk is preferred by voters over spin and deceit. Second, even though the reporter on this piece suggests Daniels thinks she is not qualified, one wonders what qualified those senators before. Certainly not the ability to think that money grows on trees!
Two things I noticed. People are beginning to take her seriously, which suggests honesty and straight talk is preferred by voters over spin and deceit. Second, even though the reporter on this piece suggests Daniels thinks she is not qualified, one wonders what qualified those senators before. Certainly not the ability to think that money grows on trees!
Male teachers and the lack of them
Today the BBC is running a news item about the lack of male teachers in primary schools. It is being portrayed as problem because the children lack a male role model whilst learning. That is undoubtedly true. However, those in the teaching profession sound utterly devoid of a reason as to why this should be. Lack of male teachers, that is.
I'd venture to say it is three main reasons. The first is that many men would shudder at the thought of teaching young children for fear of one day having a paedophile label stuck on their backs. Whether this is at the forefront of one's mind or not, it is certainly a reason for caution. With so much publicity about teachers being involved in accusations and enquiries, is it little wonder that a frisson of fear goes down a man's spine when asked if teaching is a career option? Unruly children, albeit a minority, are definitely a handful.
The second is that, from the outside, teaching in primary schools is seen as a female-dominated occupation. The fact that it is and that change is being sought is neither here nor there. It is the perception that is uppermost in current thinking. It is a brave man who will do what we used to say in the sixties and "break the ice of the party". And thirdly, the issue of pay is not seen as sufficiently attractive.
I hope they can attract more male teachers for the very reasons that are being stated. But I think they should tackle the problems of attitude head-on and not stand in wonderment at the diffidence of men in a primary school teaching role.
I'd venture to say it is three main reasons. The first is that many men would shudder at the thought of teaching young children for fear of one day having a paedophile label stuck on their backs. Whether this is at the forefront of one's mind or not, it is certainly a reason for caution. With so much publicity about teachers being involved in accusations and enquiries, is it little wonder that a frisson of fear goes down a man's spine when asked if teaching is a career option? Unruly children, albeit a minority, are definitely a handful.
The second is that, from the outside, teaching in primary schools is seen as a female-dominated occupation. The fact that it is and that change is being sought is neither here nor there. It is the perception that is uppermost in current thinking. It is a brave man who will do what we used to say in the sixties and "break the ice of the party". And thirdly, the issue of pay is not seen as sufficiently attractive.
I hope they can attract more male teachers for the very reasons that are being stated. But I think they should tackle the problems of attitude head-on and not stand in wonderment at the diffidence of men in a primary school teaching role.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
