Thursday, March 22, 2007

Let the flames begin!

Budget 07: mean not green

I have long since ceased to try to understand, let alone believe, and much less be convinced by anything the current crop of politicians and self-appointed green elite 'commentators' have to say about where we've been, are and could/should be going.

As this blog testifies, it has made not one whit of difference to entrenched positions which, by my estimate square up as about the population of tube-proximate, cycling Islingtonistas in the ecofacist pro camp, vs. the rest of the country's Daily Mail/Sun reading (well, you know what I mean) big-oil funded, Ch4 watching (and believing... how dare they) climate deniers... as a 'no' then.

So if, like me, you think there is a smidge of an issue here, and the best way to sort it is by persuasion and willing cooperation of the masses, I'd say we need a new broom pronto to sweep clear the whole sorry 'I care/know better than you lot'... pronto.


I may not agree...

What's the point of Channel 4?

'the propoganda that was The Great Global Warming Swindle.'

In passing, I am presuming that to be a typo (mea cupla, hourly) and not, in fact, a new word meaning it's well proper'.

However, I am very keen to learn more on the outcome of all the serious consequences being threatened here and there - 'Wunsch is reportedly considering [my emphasis - what the heck does that mean?] a complaint to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom' - to justify that rather, shall we say 'one-sided' view above of what was, shall we say, another, if alternative 'one-sided view'.

One man's big oil denier is another's ecofascist 'n all.

Balance, Grasshopper, balance, is how to win minds.

Who does he think the press is working for?

Set information free

It's a very good, more than fair question.

One you could ask one of your colleagues a few pages over who I just took to task on her blog, who seems to think investigations into fraud should cease when they become 'boring'. Sounds like Lord G would agree. Bore it down and bury, hmnn?

Call me old-fashioned, but I like my press feisty, factual, fanatical and fair. And tenacious (no f'in that, sorry).

Lions led by donkeys, fed by jackals

Mr Brown’s long fuse

Au contraire. As we were obviously watching another performance entirely.

As I watched BBC's Breakfast's morning cuddlefest analysis, a series of taking heads, whilst happily agreeing that it was a massive nothing at best, and con at worst, all agreed that it was politically 'brilliant'.

When are those who work in Westminster, and those who work at feeding off them, grasp that the rest of the population can figure out that if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and stinks like a duck, we can probably assess it for the duck it is.

Time to get back to politicians who stand for something more beyond getting into or staying in office, and a complete purge of the whole Pundit Zero class with highly vested interests, and careers, in making it all seem like anything other than another catwalk run by the latest naked emperor.

ps: All that simply means I agree. Chance of showers to come.

What a waste

Call for council tax rise - and a charge for emptying your bin

"But Sir Michael said with local government facing huge EU fines for missing waste targets "a charging regime would act as a powerful incentive" on householders to recycle."

No, it may act as a powerful DISINCENTIVE NOT TO, and is certainly passing the burden for meeting administrative targets onto those who are meant to be served. And pay for the 'privilege'.

Another nail in the 'fine first, figure out solutions later' coffin of what's being achieved by 'green' policies we are being subjected to these days.

Ask. Don't Tell.

I'm on a ro... mission:

Noted that Declan asked the 'enviro question' of the BMI boss regarding the impact of increased flights as a result of new regulations.

And noted that the airline industry takes this issue very seriously (where have we heard that before.. ad nauseam).

But as to the answer that he (the BMI guy) doesn't think it will adversely affect the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change, [MY QUESTION:] does the BBC think leaving it at that is adequately dealing with this as a major aspect of news issue, on the day the budget is discussed for its green influence?

Nice one BIll

I usually lump him in with the blonde as the bouffant, however in the spirit of fair critique as my concern is the lack of fact in news these days:

'I have to give a big up to Bill.

He was the only one who kept trying to point out the facts to what sounded like the most nonsensical Westminster insider hype worship I have ever heard on Mr. Brown's budget, from the Lib Dem spokesperson and Telegraph columnist.

I don't want this country, or its economy, run by people who play silly games and only admire those who do so well at the expense of substance, and certainly not commentated upon by those who have lost touch with how the normal, working person exists and views things

Let's see if one of those get a mention!

Just the facts

My discourse with BBC Breakfast over the standard of their features and reporting continues, as summarised by this, which with luck will speak (write) for itself (I could have added that this black vs. white issue was left unresolved by the blonde and bouffant 'hosts', who just giggled):

I just saw your regular medical feature Doctor directly contradict the BUPA representative.

And he in reply told her she was wrong.

I do trust by the next screening 'we' will know who, if necessary via the moderators.

Otherwise what is the point of such news?

I doubt it will get read out at all, but if it does one can only wonder which sentence they will choose this time to suit their odd notion of truth.