DUFF & NONSENSE!

"Joy shall be in heaven . . .

. . . over one sinner that repenteth" and all that sort of thing.  Well, I know the quote is not a precise fit for the event but it was the one that leapt to mind when I heard the news.  According to The Telegraph a few days ago, 'Archbishop' Richard Dawkins engaged in a long debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the course of which he admitted that he was not entirely, absolutely, completely, convinced that there was no God:

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

It was not reported at the time but I have it on good authority that Canterbury's beard shot out horizontal to the floor, and that several members of the Humanist Society required first aid!  When challenged as to why, therefore, he did not call himself an agnostic, he replied that he did.  At this point, I am led to believe, the scene resembled a Bateman cartoon with devout atheists rocking back on their heels with eyeballs threatening to burst from their sockets!

You see, that's one the very few advantages of living long - you get to see sundry chumps change their minds.  Even if, in this case, it is only 0.1 of his mind!

 

Only the Irish!

How did I miss this story?  My favourite columnist , Kevin Myers, wrote about it over a week ago but somehow I missed it and actually I picked it up via Fausta's Blog - and don't ask me how I came across her!

So here's the story:  In Galway, in the Republic of Ireland, an Irish Labour councillor with peat for brains has proposed that a statue be erected to the memory of a mass murderer.  Needless to say, this particular mass murderer was a socialist and therefore, in the eyes of most socialists, is not a mass murderer at all, merely a sort of social cleaner, a remover of unwanted detritus, or 'people', as some softies call them.  The particular murderer they wish to worship in this prime tourist town in Eire is Che Guevara.  My first thought was surely they had enough home-grown murderers to choose from without going abroad.  Mind you, I suppose that when the murderers are home grown, and fairly recent in historical terms, it's not quite so easy to wipe the shit and blood off their personas and repaint them gold!  But handsome, foreign and by now somewhat historical Che Guevara is just the job.  He is now so cloaked in mythology that even in the internet age his memory remains hallowed.  Only the 'Oirish', I thought to myself.

Still, at least they afford us all some unintended humour.  Over the years they slaughtered in their thousands the mostly innocent for the sole purpose, or so they claimed an' all, to rid their nation of a foreign ruler, er, us, actually.  Fair enough, I suppose, if you look at it with one eye and from their side, but, having filled in the graves, so to speak, what have they done with their precious independence.  Well, bless my soul, Mother M'Ginty, they turned around and gave it away to the Germans, so they did an' all.  No, no, not at the point of a Hun bayonet but freely and gratuitously.  Mind you, they were exceedingly sympathetic to the German cause in both world wars so I suppose it wasn't that unreasonable!    The Germans watched impassively as the 'Oirish' then went on the knees up of all knees ups and now that the money has run out they have taken over the Irish State lock, stock and empty barrel!  Of course, they are hiding behind the Brussels' bureaucracy but that doesn't fool anyone, does it? - oh, it does - the Irish, of course!  Anyway, stitched up tighter then any absentee English landlord might have managed a century ago the Irish are to be tossed a bone.  Not a real bone, of course, a rubber pretend one like the sort you give your dog to chew on.  The Irish are to be allowed to vote on whether they agree to the permanent overlordship of their money-lender who is keeping them afloat, or, choose to be flushed down the toilet into total bankruptcy?  As dear Oscar put it, 'you would need a heart of stone not to laugh'!

 

Manstein: great general but an ordinary man

I have finished Mungo Melvin's excellent and thorough biography of Field Marshal Eric von Manstein and I am now pondering whether to award myself the Knights Grand Cross for my stamina in marching halfway across Russia and then marching back again, or just the good, old British army's Long Service and Good-ish Conduct Medal.  Yes, it has been a hard, long flog but definitely well worth it.

Melvin, in the title to his book, calls Manstein "Hitler's Greatest General"  and it would take more than the opinion of an ex-Corporal like me to argue against it.  And anyway, ex-Corporals don't come out of this book too well!  As it happens, I didn't really need Melvin's book to convince me of his claim because I had already picked up enough in general reading to realise that Manstein was a brilliant general.  None of the other German generals, not even (or perhaps, especially) the over-hyped Rommel, came near Manstein's tremendous expertise in the handling of not just armies but groups of armies.  This is mainly, but not entirely, a military history and Melvin, an ex-general himself, makes the task of following the various manouvres relatively easy although the uninitiated would do well to brush up on the very useful chart below the first map which explains the military symbols which differentiate the hierarchy of army formations from Army Group down to Brigade via Army, Corps and Division.  This will make the maps easier to understand - and talking of the maps, let me sing a chorus in praise of the publisher of the paper-back edition, Phoenix, for going to the expense of printing all the necessary maps - in colour! - and putting them all in one place so that they can be easily found.  I have lost count of the number of military histories whose maps are utterly useless!

I will not rehearse all the details of Manstein's various campaigns, apart from anything else, Melvin tells it much better than I can.  But what I do wish to dwell upon is Manstein the man, and it is in this area that Melvin's book is superb.  He takes a long, hard, cool look at his subject and hands down a very fair assessment.  Manstein was a cultivated, Christian gentleman, far removed from the bull-necked Nazis who feature in the cartoons of the time.  But, he was also a Prussian officer, born and raised in the ethos of all that being a Prussian officer entails including a profound sense of patriotic duty and obedience!  Until 1918, that unquestioning obedience was offered to the King of Prussia who eventually became the Emperor of Germany.  Whatever private doubts the officer class entertained about Hitler as being, so to speak, 'not quite a gentleman', these had to be quashed after they were forced to take a Christian oath of loyalty to the new head of state.  A man like Manstein would not, could not, easily break such a profound oath sworn over a bible.

In weighing and admiring Manstein's obvious genius as a commander, Melvin never lets his detachment be subverted.  He accuses Manstein, along with virtually the entire German officer corps, of a lack of strategic, as opposed to operational, insight which allowed him to follow Hitler into a war with Russia which was never going to be winnable.  This strategic blind spot, a characteristic shared by most of the Anglo/American high command (with the exception of Alan Brooke and, eventually, Marshall) was exacerbated by excessive hubris, and this hubris was itself inflamed by the easy, early and stunning victories of the Werhmacht in Poland and Western Europe.  What could go wrong?  Well, eventually Manstein found out, but surpisingly late in the day.  According to Melvin, the German high command perpetually under-estimated the ability of the Russians to recover and, above all, to learn from their mistakes.  Not the least of German military weaknesses lay in their constant failures in the field of Intelligence at all levels, and that surprised me.

The book goes on to cover Manstein's eventual arrest and charge as a war criminal responsible for the crimes against humanity that were carried out by the SS who, whilst not under his direct command, nevertheless operated in his area of responsibility.  Again, Melvin weighs the pros and cons, including Manstein's own very carefully worked out defence, and cooly decides that Manstein has much to answer for. 

Two things occurred to me whilst reading this book which the author does not dwell upon.  First, Manstein had an example before him of how a brave and clear-thinking Christian officer and gentleman should have behaved with a malignant creature like Hitler in charge, and that was Gen. Ludwig Beck, Chief of the German General Staff in the late '30s and Manstein's direct superior.  Beck began by falling for Hitler's promises but as time went on he saw through the pretence and sickened by Hitler's attitudes he resigned.  Later he, he joined the conspiracy against Hitler and upon its failure he commited suicide.

The second thing that occurred to me was how, in one respect at least, this 'septic Isle', as I call it rather rudely, has developed some immensely wise and prudent political structures.  Thus, our military swear allegience to the monarch, and the monarch ('Gawd bless 'er!') has virtually no political power at all.  Thus, should some Hitlerite poltroon arise in this country our military need have no moral problems in seeing him off.  (Even as I write that I can sense several of you reaching for your keyboards to hurl the name of Tony Blair at me - don't bother, there is absolutely no comparison).

Anyway, I recommend this book very highly.  Not just a tale of soldierly 'derring-do' but also an accurate portrayal of a great man with great flaw lines running through him.  Did I mention the word 'Shakespearean'?  No, I would never stoop to such a cliché, you know me!

Manstein: Hitler's Great General by Hugo Melvin and it's on Kindle for only £7.99.

 

'Peak Oil' just peaked and died!

I remember when I first discovered this 'internet-blogging-thingie' I began by just visiting other sites and joining in the commentary.  I don't know why but, despite my placid personality, most times it would end in an 'e-fight'.  One of the topics almost guaranteed to kick off trouble was when some 'Greenie' would come on, tolling his bell, so to speak, on the subject of 'Peak Oil', it's imminent arrival and our certain decline into mass starvation and destitution.  Their cures for this supposed ill varied from 'Herodical' (kill all the children - now!) to dippy-daft (we must all revert to living in rural mud-huts).  My mild suggestion that whilst the notion of 'Peak Oil' might be considered as an abstract possibility it was not worth wasting time (and energy - heh-heh!) worrying about it because it was never going to be a problem.  Cue hissy-fits, rage, insults and then, usually, a ban!

Courtesy of IHTM, I have been reading a piece by Andrew Orlowski at The A Register. (The name Orlowski rang a bell and courtesy of my superb search-thingie I discovered that I had referred to him back in January 2010 when he succeeded in giving my mate 'Rupe' a slap for some unscientific nonsense printed in The Times.)  Anyway, this time Orlowski is drawing our attention to a paper produced by Citigroup commodity analysts (PDF version here) which is entitled: 

Resurging North American Oil Production and the Death of the Peak Oil Hypothesis  

The United States’ Long March Toward Energy Independence [*]

According to Orlowski, the report states that new "unconventional" oil and gas is now available as it is extracted from shale via such means as 'fracking'.  In addition, progress has been made in the production of synthetic oils and, according to Orlowski:

in a decade the low-carbon synthetic replacements for oil will be in production, too, assuming oil remains at $40-$50 a barrel.

So now the 'Greenies' are faced with an all too real 'end-of-the-world' scenario as their own deeply cherished beliefs literally go up in smoke.  What will they think of next to scare the children?  My best guess is Global Freezing.  Stick around, it will not be long in coming!

[*]  Mind you, the thought that the USA might be self-sufficient in oil energy in the near future leaves me worrying about who will undertake to keep supplies flowing from the middle-east?

 

"Homeland": I'm siding with the Arabs!

Oh dear, "What a falling off was there"!  I'm only on the second episode and already I'm getting grumpy.  The demented girlie security agent running a surveillance centre from her front room is beyond belief let alone ridicule.  The almighty American 'Homeland Security Service' can only spare one man to tail another and he looks so suspicious that even a shop security guard spots him!  We have to suffer the excruciating embarrassment of HBO's standard bit of 'naughty-porn' which it seeks to inject into virtually every series it makes - even including The Wire, than which etc, etc.  As always, American thriller series never quite get Arab baddies right.  So far, in this one, we have only seen the right-hand man to some mega-rich Arab Sheik and although he only had a few lines he didn't look or sound right to me.  'Jack Bauer' did all this so much better in his "24 Hours" series which was total tosh but didn't try to be anything else, it just got on with it at high speed and we all enjoyed the ride.  "Homeland" is in danger of taking itself seriously which is fine provided you have the time and the budget to do it properly - I give you the TV version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, need I say more?  I shall give it one more episode and if it fails to improve I'm afraid Rupe's 'magic-do-flicker-thingie' will have to be used to merciless effect!

On the cusp on the Eastern Front!

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had volunteered for the Eastern Front in order to serve with Field Marshal Eric von Manstein, arguably Hitler's finest general, courtesy of a biography written by Maj. Gen. (ret'd.) Mungo Melvin.  Little has been heard from me on this subject for some time and I expect you have all been worried, er, you have, haven't you?  Anyway, the book is enormous which is entirely in keeping with the events it is recording.  I have 'fought' my way almost, but crucially not quite, to Stalingrad.  Led by the General (and the author!) I have lost Kharkov but retaken it.  Now Kursk looms!  Anyone with even a slight knowledge of the war on the Eastern Front will know Kursk was quite simply so huge, so mammoth, so gigantic a battle that I am sure you will forgive me for taking a bit of R&R before I continue the advance.  Apart from anything else, the bloody book weighs a ton!  Tomorrow I'm back up the sharp end reading as fast as possible and hopefully I will be able to give you a detailed review next weekend.  In the meantime, if you are hesitating on buying a copy - don't!  It is excellent.

 

Parsing the spooks

Sometimes - not too often, mind! - one has a brief feeling of sympathy for our 'inglorious leaders'.  As we have discussed before on this blog, the situation in Iran is poised dangerously in that cliché between a rock and a hard place.  The problem is that no-one is too sure which is the rock and which is the hard place, and nor does anyone seem too know for certain precisely how hard either of them are in reality.  Pity the poor President - oh, go on, give it a try!  He has now been presented with an intelligence report which represents the combined views of sixteen US intelligence agencies (Sixteen?!)  My immediate thought was that any report upon which sixteen different bureaucracies can agree is probably waste-bin material!  Even so, there appear to be have been some subtle minds at work on this particular effort which comes to us from The LA Times quoted in The American Thinker with my emphasis:

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

So, the Iranians are lining up all their nuclear bits and pieces but are not actually assembling them - yet! But, and here you can see the subtle minds at work in the higher reaches of the intelligence agency bureaucracies, it is "a known known" that President 'Peace 'n' Love' Obama would do anything, including surrender, to avoid going to war and this 'intelligence report' meets his needs precisely, as The American Thinker points out:

President Obama has been very careful in saying that we would not allow Iran to build a weapon. In other words, until we have conclusive evidence that Iran isn't merely preparing to build a bomb, but is actually constructing a weapon, we will take no action.

So which came first, the presidential chicken or the intelligence agency egg?  The Israelis, of course, cannot afford the luxoury of such subtle parsing and will strike as and when they are convinced that "there is no alternative", as another very tough and realistic politican once said.  In an uncertain world I am content to leave it to the Israelis to decide if and when.

 

From our Australian correspondent

Here at D&N we do like to keep you all fully informed with the very latest news from around the world - did we mention that Japan had surrendered? - and today we have a brief report from our Australian correspondent, Andra, on the roiling within their Labor [sic]party - I am told that is how they spell it 'down under there'.  We must all be very grateful to Andra because, of course, now that Australians have given up speaking English (letter 'a' is pronounced as an 'e') everything thay say on TV or radio is totally incomprehensible.  Anyway, here's Andra's latest report:

Anyway, tomorrow will tell. I don't understand why Rudd has done this.  He is a very smart man and would appear to be about to be totally destroyed - Gillard will win.  Rudd may have more votes than people are letting on today but the equation seems to roughly 60 for the dreadful sheila (she's Welsh, by the way .... ask them if they'd take her back if we took up a collection to help with their budget) and around 30 for Krudd.  Rudd's wife is a multi-millionaire and Rudd has been busy working day and night for years to secure a place in the United Nations.  It would appear he now has something concrete to look forward to and is, therefore, destroying his erstwhile party before he gives them the finger and jets out to run the world from New York. 

Good riddance and a pox on both their houses! 

Tony Abbott is now pretty assured of winning the next election for the Liberals [I believe that's what conservatives call themselves 'down under there'] - unless he wears his bloody red budgie smugglers one more time, that is.  Nobody likes him either.  The only person capable of actually winning and running the country is Malcolm Turnbull and he is just sitting back and grinning in a Cheshire cat manner.

And, no, since you ask, I haven't a clue what "bloody red Budgie smugglers" are, either!  But thanks anyway to Andra for her succinct summary of the Australian political scene.  It did, perhaps, lack that detached objectivity for which this distinguished but utterly neutral blog is famed, but hey, 'she's Aussie, ain't she?'!

 

"L.A. Confidential": dir. Curtis Hanson

This blog prides itself on being right up to date with its commentary and so, within a mere 15 years (yes, I know, it's amazing!), I bring you a review of the film L.A. Confidential directed by Curtis Hanson.  Ever since 'Rupe' (such a nice man and I do wish him luck with his sunny Sunday Sun) sent me one of his 'magic-recording-do-flicker-thingies' I have been recording things like mad - well, it's so easy, you just click around and it's done.  The only problem is watching the damn things!  Because I'm such an ace with the 'do-flicker-thingie' I have amassed such a huge library of recordings that the poor machine is actually bulging  but, and this is the problem, I never quite get around to watching them.  And when I do scroll down the enormous list of waiting films I begin to understand the parable of the donkey who starves to death between a wheat field and a grass field because he can't make up his mind which to eat!  If only 'Rupe', in all his wisdom, could invent another 'thingie' that would play the recordings in your mind whilst you pottered about doing the rest of your life what a boon to Mankind that would be.

Anyway, L. A. Confidential was as (99%) excellent as everyone and his uncle have been telling me for, well, 15 years, actually.  I dropped it 1% because I think the director/writer lost his nerve right at the end and allowed Officer Wendell 'Bud' Wright (Russell Crowe - absolutely excellent) to live - despite being pumped full of more lead than your average lead mine!  Not only that, he actually rode off (not on a horse but in a Chevy or something) with his girl into a sunny Californian morning which was such a Hollywood cliche I am amazed the producers could swallow it, particularly after the previous 99% of gritty, sardonic observation.

I use the word 'sardonic' rather than 'cynical' because what lifted the film (and story) for me was that it steadfastly refused to follow the style of some modern playwrights and become just another tedious tale of the inherent and uncurable wickedness of Man.  Instead, it showed bad, or at least, weak, men, one or two of whom gradually discovered the good in themselves - and their surprise that it was still there!  In this, Kevin Spacey's performance was superb.  The fact that this discovery of buried morality then brought about his death is why the word 'sardonic' is exactly right.  And the cream was added to this delicious cake when the 'good guy' detective, Lt. Exley (Guy Pearce - terrific!*), in the end, descends to less than pure methods to achieve his moral ends.

Altogether, a first-class piece of film-making and if you haven't seen it yet - what on earth have you been doing for the last 15 years! - treat yourself to the DVD.  Next week, in line with our policy, here at D&N, to bring you bang-up-to-date reviews of the very latest in Hollywood films, I shall be giving you my critique of a Mr. Charles Chaplin in a film called  The Tramp!

* Guy Pearce - I know he's had a good career but why isn't he up their with the mega-stars of Hollywood?

 

The future is NOW - and thank God it's in Germany!

Sorry to bang on, I'm beginning to sound like a saloon bar bore - sorry, didn't quite catch that?  However, we can now see the absolute and awful result of 'Greenery' at work - in Germany.  Der Spiegel covers it in a detailed report which should be required reading for all government ministers, and especially, an  ex-minister who might well have time on his hands over the next few months in between 'slopping out'!  The whole sorry mess is summed up by the fate of the ThyssenKrupp steel plant in Krefeld:

Despite the signs, protests and pickets, ThyssenKrupp, Germany's largest steelmaker, sold its Krefeld stainless steel mill to Finnish competitor Outukumpu two weeks ago. The new owner plans to shut down production by the end of next year, leaving more than 400 workers without a job. The economic loss to this stricken city on the lower Rhine will be significant.  

The closing of the Krefeld mill cannot be blamed on low-wage competition from the Far East or mismanagement at ThyssenKrupp's Essen headquarters, but rather on the misguided policies of the German government. That, at least, is the view held by those affected by the closing. Since Chancellor Angela Merkel's government abruptly decided to phase out nuclear energy last spring in the wake of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, the situation for industries that consume a lot of electricity has become much more tenuous.

This is not some local event but reflects a reality that is being felt all over Germany:

In macroeconomic terms, the impending demise of heavy industry is all the more worrying, because the job losses will not be offset elsewhere. There is no sign yet of the green economic miracle that the federal government promised would accompany Germany's new energy strategy. On the contrary, many manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels complain that business is bad and are cutting jobs. Some solar companies have already gone out of business. The environmental sector faces a number of problems, especially -- and ironically -- those stemming from high energy prices.

And it isn't just the high price of energy that is forcing German manufacturers to relocate but also the increasing risk of power cuts:

It is equally important to stabilize the power grid as quickly as possible to prevent blackouts from occurring. Until now, the reliability of the German electricity supply was seen as a significant advantage for doing business in the country. But the loss of several nuclear power plants, coupled with the unpredictability of electricity from wind and solar sources, has changed the situation.

There have been several instances recently of power cuts resulting from the strain imposed on the German grid.  These cuts, as power is desperately switched from one area to another to meet demand, take place so quickly that domestic consumers are unaware of them but the damage to manufacturing industry is enormous because their sophisticated machinery cannot just be stopped and started again without hefty costs.

In Germany today we can see 'the Green future' - and it stinks!

 

Warming! What bloody warming?

It is now obvious, other than to the most dedicated HAF, that the whole notion of CO2-caused global warming has followed the example of the dodo!  It is patently clear that given an increase of CO2 of 11% over the last 22 years (no doubt helped along by all those Chinese coal-driven power-stations which open at the rate of one a week, or is one a day?), then global temperatures should be rocketing with daily queues forming for sun-block and parasols.  Alas, the best this measely old globe could manage by way of an increase in temperature from 1989 to 2011 was - wait for it - a pathetic 0.2C.  In fact the only red faces around are not due to sun burn but to the embarrassment of the HAF 'scientists' who fed the data to the IPCC who then produced their wildly exaggerated forecasts:

Desperately seeking an umbrella under which to hide their embarrassment, not their sun-burnt skins, the HAF 'scientists' have now come up with a real corker:  the heat they absolutely and definitely forecast, they now say, is actually hidden at the bottom of the ocean!  (Oh, yeah, right, OK, now why don't you take your pills and have a nice lie down?)  As the 16 scientists point out in a reply to the criticism leveled at them by the likes of Trenberth & Co (dedicated HAFs, all of them):

The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

What will they think of next?  This blog in its usual fair and open-minded way is open to suggestions as to where all that missing heat is hiding but I must ask you to observe the proprieties.  Suggestions to the effect that the barmaid at the Dog and Duck is definitely hiding some considerable heat down the front of her blouse will not be allowed!  (Er, unless you tell me where the Dog and Duck is located!)

 

The dictator is dictated to!

There is nothing quite so amusing as when organisers of events which are almost entirely inconsequential start to take themselves seriously.  Thus it is with the Oscars.  The mere fact that the organisers entitle themselves as The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences - my dear, an academy, no less - is enough to set off the giggles.  Very quickly it provides a sitting duck target for the likes of Sacha Baron Cohen who can spot over-inflated pomposity at a hundred paces.  He has just completed a picture called The Dictator and 'The Acadamy' have graciously granted him and his company tickets to attend the Oscar ceremony, but, only on condition that he does not make use of the obligatory red carpet along which all the stars strut their stuff for the purposes of publicity. Publicity?!  Movies?!  Hollywood?! Perish the thought!

 

According to Hollywood Deadline:

The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has pulled actor Sacha Baron Cohen‘s tickets from the 84th Academy Awards. This means he is banned from attending the Oscars even though he is an Academy member and one of the stars from Hugo, Paramount’s 11-nominated movie and Best Picture contender. “Unless they’re assured that nothing entertaining is going to happen on the Red Carpet, the Academy is not admitting Sacha Baron Cohen to the show,”  Paramount just told me. The reason is that a proposal reached the Academy for Baron Cohen to strut the Red Carpet in full costume as his title character in the upcoming Paramount comedy

Despite all the shrewd, keen insight one automatically attaches to The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, it is obvious that Cohen has already won hands down:

Of course, the next best thing to that publicity stunt is all the media coverage which this ban is going to generate for Baron Cohen’s film. So the Academy has decided to act like dictators about the actor playing The Dictator.

Doncha' just lurve show business?

 

Give Hestor a knighthood!

For some reason I can't quite explain, my default page when I open up my internet browser-thingie is the BBC news page.  I never read it, although I do quickly take in the headlines.  Today, with the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announcing a £2bn loss and the BBC whining as it asks, "What has Stephen Hestor achieved?" I decided to read the articles, here and here.  They point out that this year's loss is virtually double last year's and on that basis the tone is one of snide criticism at the money Mr. Hestor earns even after he gave up his bonus.  However, in a somewhat grudging nod at the truth they reported that RBS had been forced to set aside £850m to reimburse customers who had been stitched up by the spivs in the previous (non)management team, and also, they had to write off £1.1bn of Greek debt, again, the work of the previous bosses.  Take that away and the reported loss drops to the same as last year's.  All the time, of course, Hestor has been flogging off non-core assets and the market, sniffing a distressed seller in nano-seconds, was obviously not going to pay top dollar.   Needless to say, the BBC keeps whingeing about the fact that it is the tax-payers who now own the bank - although I don't remember anyone asking me at the time! - and nor do I remember the BBC complaining about it on behalf of the suckers people who pay their disgracefully huge salaries via the TV licence fee.  Naturally, the fact that we had a Jock PM and a Jock Chancellor at the time this Jock bank went belly-up, and that the Labour party absolutely depends on the Jock vote, had absolutely nothing to do with it, or at least, I don't remember the BBC suggesting it at the time!

 

No wonder they lost the war!

What an amazing people the Germans are, so clever, so organised, so efficient, so that one can say with absolute accuracy that all their myriad mistakes are at least well-thought out mistakes.  All careless mistakes are strictly verboten!  I raise this hoary old truism because I am still soldiering on through Maj. Gen. Melvin's superb biography of von Manstein in which, despite the Field Marshal's almost super-human efforts, the mistakes keep piling up.  (I shall be writing more on this but so far I have only reached Stalingrad - and my heart is bleeding for all concerned.)

So let us turn from strategic folly to mere monetary and pseudo-scientific folly, and let us all be honest, in our different ways we are all as daft as the Germans.  Not for the first time I am obliged to that rumbustious Dane, Mr. Bjørn Lomborg, who continues in his very naughty practice of pouring buckets of commonsense over idiots!  In this case, the idiots are German but look no further than Southwark Crown Court in a few weeks to spot a particularly ripe British example.  (Mind you, with a name like Huhne, I can't help feeling there's a bit of Hun in him!)  Anyway, back to Deutschland where, Mr. Lomberg tells us, they have finally decided to cut all their subsidies to the green lunacy we call 'solar panels':

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

I can hardly wait:

Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

Well even I could have told them that and I wouldn't know the difference between "photovoltaic" and a Box Brownie!  You see, this is a point I can never quite get across to the HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics) who are forever demanding to know my scientific credentials and I keep telling them I don't have any or need any.  All you have to do when faced with the latest 'End of the World is Nigh' merchants is to ignore them and do the opposite of what they preach.  Certainly when it comes to grandiose schemes involving 'loadsa' money you must instantly clutch your wallet and make for the exit because they couldn't spell the word 'economics' and they think a balance sheet is a something that keeps weighing machines neutral.  The sort of monster cock-up described by Mr. Lomberg could have been seen coming decades ago:

Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately, Germany—like most of the world—is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. [My emphasis] The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.

And, poor things, they can't even depend on their own nuclear power stations because, as I told you a few weeks ago, the 'Kaiserin' has shut them down.  Still, perhaps, it gives them a warm feeling of moral superiority.  If so, it is the equivalent of the man who is proud of his 5 cm willy:

Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO₂ emissions by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours. [My emphasis]

A whole 23 hours over the next 88 years.  Gosh, that's a relief!

 

It ain't over even when the Euro fat cats sing!

I was away for most of yesterday but I was glad to see in retrospect that the majority of observers have confirmed my suspicions that the 'Greek deal' is a non-deal which simply puts back the inevitable day of reckoning.  Richard North offers, via The WaPo, a summary of views from a variety of economic swots all of whom come to the conclusion that this particular European Zeppelin will not fly, indeed, the hissing sound you can hear is that of escaping gas!

However, Richard North, as is his frequent habit, asks the really pertinent question - what is it that we have missed?

Now, if this bailout is so awful that even the BBC can see it, and we know that the "colleagues" include amongst their number some extremely bright cookies, the fatal weaknesses of the deal must be obvious to them as well. So who are they trying to fool?

Therein lies the mystery. One should always beware of the obvious, and with so many commentators patting themselves on the back for their perspicacity – including me – there is the danger that we are missing something.

He is entirely right.  The 'collegues', as he calls them may be wrong-headed about their European project but they are not stupid:

That "something" is the next step. The "colleagues" really are not that stupid, and if it is so transparent to us all that the deal cannot work, they surely must have something in reserve … a "plan B".

An alternative, of course, is that there really is nothing left in the locker - that this is the last, despairing fling to stave off the inevitable. But, with their Houdini-like skills for escaping from impossible situations, it is hard to believe that. It is all very well, therefore, for these clever people pontificating about how bad the bailout deal is, and how certain it is to fail. Even the dimmest of us knows that by now. Thus, the question stands: what have we missed?

Is that a fat lady I can hear singing?  Nah! Just the wails of anguish emanating from Greece.

 

What's the Greek for 'a bugger's muddle'?

There's complex, there's convoluted, there's chaos - and then there's Greek politics!  Lest you doubt me - how could you? - there is a sort of interesting article in Der Spiegel which seeks to explain the intracacies.  I qualify my praise somewhat because reading it is rather like reading alphabet soup.  No fault of the writer, but Greek politics are in a mess, with the main parties discredited and their support plummeting and the ways wide open for invasion by the inchoate loonies from Left and Right.  The election is due in April, although some say May, but judging by this analysis the Greek parliament is going to end up as a shambolic shouting match, almost like a football stadium in which the fans are supporting at least half a dozen different teams!   Spiegel reports that a leader, Mr. Tsipras, of one of the Left-wing parties: 

wants "Greece to remain a systemic problem for Europe." He argues that this is the only way to ensure that the billions from the bailout packages are actually disbursed, and the only way to ensure that Europe, fearing the risk of contagion that would emanate from a Greek bankruptcy, will defer Greece's debts, or perhaps even forgive them one day. This is what Tsipras is betting on. It's a crude, extortionist way of thinking.

That should go down like a ten week-old, dead skunk in Brussels, and someone will need to pluck up the courage to give 'dear Angela' mouth-to-mouth resuscitation - any volunteers?  At the other end of the spectrum (you know, where Left and Right tend to hold hands!) you have a party calling itself The Golden Dawn and you really don't need to be a student of politics to guess the sort of thing they believe in:

The Golden Dawn fascists preach the "superiority of the white race and the Greek nation."

Well, the Greeks are supposed to have invented politics so perhaps they know what they are doing and where they are going but from here it looks like all roads lead to hell!

 

Another possible answer to my impertinent question

A few posts back , rather impertinently, I asked you what you would do about the Iranian problem. Without even waiting for your answers I suggested, in my usual aggressive fashion, that we zap them quick before they were in a position to zap us.  However, acording to Breitbart, those ever-intelligent Israelis appear to be offering an alternative - an 'Iron Dome'!

The Israeli military will on Monday deploy a battery of rocket interceptors from its "Iron Dome" system in the Tel Aviv region, a military spokesman said on Sunday. [...]

The first of its kind in the world and still at the experimental stage, it is not yet able to provide complete protection, but it has successfully brought down several rockets fired from Gaza.

Designed to intercept rockets and artillery shells fired from a range of between four and 70 kilometres (three and 45 miles), Iron Dome is part of an ambitious multi-layered defence programme to protect Israeli towns and cities.

Of course, that is their answer to the very specific problem they face with short-range missiles.  However:

Two other systems make up the programme -- the Arrow long-range ballistic missile defence system and the so-called David's Sling, or Magic Wand, system, intended to counter medium-range missiles. [My emphasis]

So perhaps our strategic counter move should be to buy a similar long-range missile defence system from our American allies, or if they pull their usual trick of over-charging, perhaps we can do a deal with the Israelis.  All the Jewish traders I ever dealt with were always willing to bargain, so perhaps, 10 missiles for the price of 9, my life already!

 

Out for most of the day

Back later on.

WATCH or SET YOUR RECORDERS: HOMELAND, ch4, 11.00 TONIGHT!

Just a quickie and all part of the superb service you have grown to expect here at D&N!  I have just watched the first episode of Homeland, a new (to Brit TV) HBO series from 'over there', starring Damian Lewis.  On the basis of just one episode it instantly garners my 'CORKER AWARD' - than which no director, cast or crew could hope for more - you can stick your Golden Globes where the sun don't shine!  The first episode was shown on Saturday night but they are repeating it tonight on Channel 4 at 11.00pm.  Not to be missed - and when have I ever steered you wrong?

A real heavy-weight match: Keynes vs. Hayek

 Sorry, sorry, but my e-pal Hank sent me this link in 'Comments' and because I thought it was very witty and appropriate, I applied my usual high-tech skills, that is, clicking on every single button until something happens (did I ever tell you I served as a weapons officer on a nuclear sub?) in order to add it on at the bottom of my original post.  Instead it has appeared at the top.  Never mind, it's great fun, in fact, much better than my waffle!  Thanks, Hank.

 

After the 'hand-bags-at-dawn' nonsense indulged in by two obviously brain-damaged boxers yesterday, I thought you might be interested in a real heavy-weight match.  I am grateful to Brian Doherty of Reason.com for his review of a book by British journalist, Nicholas Wapshott: Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics.  In it, the author attempts to score the 'contest' that took place between them over several rounds during the middle of the last century.  Both were hugely influential but, from my less than expert eye, it seems obvious that Keynes was far and away the winner in terms of whose philosophy was applied the most by the most governments of the world.

I half-considered buying the book but Mr. Doherty is less than enthusiastic.  He had assumed that the author would have considered whose economic theories would work best in our current and parlous economic condition but apparently he does not. 

Wapshott does not ignore the present in favor of the distant past, although the bulk of the book’s narrative is set in the 1930s. But he seems to think his subjects’ contemporary relevance is best reduced to the big-picture conflict between government intervention (Keynes) and free markets (Hayek). Wapshott focuses on the disagreements the two had over political philosophy and practice rather than the technical specifics of their economics. Those political disagreements are important, but they arose from crucial differences in economic theory. 

For example, Keynes believed that intelligent, well-meaning planners manipulating economic aggregates such as demand and employment can bring about a happy end to business cycles. Hayek, by contrast, insisted that individual decisions and imbalances between specific prices and demand, or interest rates and specific plans for long-term productive projects, are where the economic action is. 

I cannot pretend to be an expert on either of the two distinguished subjects of this book although I am definitely more grounded in Hayek, judging by the number of his books on my shelves; but on the other hand, with the exception of a dozen or so years, I have lived most of my life under Keynesian regimes of one sort or another.

It strikes me that in any competition for the attention of government ministers, Keynes was bound to be a winner because his theories provided both employment and power to ministers!  Hayek's philosophy, on the other hand, was quite specific in wanting to reduce the power of politicians and hand it back to people - dread thought!  (Well, 'dread thought' if you are a politician!)

Were I to be banished to that mythical desert island with my eight records and just one book beyond the collected works of Shakespeare, I think Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty would be my choice.  It's ages since I read it but I have just taken it down from the bookcase and it fell open to a page with one paragraph that begins thus:

Much confusion of this issue is due to a tendency (particularly strong in the Continental tradition, but with the spreading of socialist ideas growing rapidly also in the Anglo-Saxon world) to identify 'state' and 'society'.  The state, the organization of the people under a single government, although an indispensible condition for the development of an advanced society, is yet very far from being identical with society, or rather with the multiplicity of grown and self-generating structures of men who have any freedom that alone deserves the name of society.  In a free society the state is one of many organisations - the one  which is required to provide  an effective external framework within which  self-generating orders  can form, but an organisation which is confined to the government  apparatus and which does not determine the activities of free individuals. 

Yeeeees, well, you can see why the politicians and their bureaucrats sniffed at Hayek's propositions!  Also, you can appreciate even more the intellectual courage of the one and only British prime minister who did her best to follow Hayek's philosophy.

 

Anybody seen any yellow ducks? Or rocks?

Look, you're to take this seriously!  The search is on.  A worldwide search.  Check under your bed.  Look in that drawer with all of last year's Christmas wrapping-paper

 

 that you saved so carefully in order to re-use this year - you cheapskate!  Try the garden shed, if you have one, or, if you can bring yourself to it, take a look in the spare wheel compartment of the car, you'll be amazed what you might find there!  And, if it's a yellow plastic duck, er, don't let me know but do tell Mr. Donovan Hohn, a writer and presumably a plastic duck enthusiast who has just written a book on the subject of the 29,000 ducks which fell overboard in a container from a ship up in the far north Pacific between Alaska and Japan.  To his everlasting fame, or shame, Mr. Donovan has called his book - wait for it - Moby Duck!  Apparently some of them have ended up as far south as Hawaii although one lady has reported finding one on a Scottish beach!  We must accept her word for it because according to The Independent she is a 'MacCocklecarrot' and therefore of utter probity.  The BBC reported this morning that there was also some purple turtles lost overboard at the time but I would not advise you to tell your friends or neighbours that your are looking for purple turtles, they might wonder what you're on!

And whilst your rifling through your golf-bag, or crawling through your roof-space, do look out for any old rocks you might come across, like this one below:

Apparently, skip-loads of moon rock have gone missing.  Honestly, you just can't trust some people.  That nice President Kennedy and his successors started spending all those tax dollars just to send some cleaners to the moon and when they'd finished tidying up they brought back some of the rocks they found - well, Moonies are very untidy and leave them lying about all over the place.  According to the BBC, these rocks were split up and given to various heads of state and since then most of them have gone missing, er, that's the rocks, actually, although so too have most of the heads of state!

Needless to say, the 'Oirish' threw theirs out with the rubbish, at least that's what they telling us, but perhaps they were mixing it up with the blarney stone!  Supposedly there was a fire at their space observatory (an 'Oirish' space observatory?!) and a spokesman reckons the moon rock ended up in a landfill site.

Anyway, stop sitting around reading this rubbish, get out and start looking!

  

The Greeks ain't got nuthin' on the Yanks!

You thought the Greeks were big spenders?  Profligate spendthrifts for whom pissing against walls is a national occupation?  Well, 'you ain't seen nuthin' yet'!

Take a look 'over there' at what the New York Times is pleased to call "a responsible budget".  If you are not sleeping well you can plough through their detailed analysis to Chart 5-1 on Page 58 of their 500-page appendix on "Analytical Perspectives."  On the other hand, if you do, you will be awake with nightmares, particularly if you are a young American.  On the basis that a picture is worth a thousand words, summon up your courage and peek at this through your fingers:

As Mark Steyn tells it at Investors.com:

[A]t the House Budget Committee last Thursday, Chairman Paul Ryan produced another chart, this time from the Congressional Budget Office, with an even steeper straight line showing debt rising to 900% of GDP and rocketing off the graph circa 2075.

But then, Paul Ryan is one of those flinty-hearted, Republican realists who understands money and compound interest.  Needless to say, his dash of realism produced nothing more than chortles from the 'Sec. for Funny Money', Mr. Timmy Geitner, and his colleagues:

[T]he chart would have been even more hilarious if they'd run the numbers into the next millennium: "You could have taken it out to 3,000 or to 4,000" he chortled, to supportive titters from his aides.

To which Mr. Ryan offered a sharp, cold rejoinder that should send shivers up the American spine, assuming there is still one in existence:

"Yeah, right." replied Ryan. "We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office, shuts down in 2027 on this path." [My emphasis]

It is some time since I mentioned Glenn Beck, mostly because he has moved from Fox News so I no longer see or hear him.  However, I would remind you that beneath the fast-talking spiel that he produces 'on air' there is a considerable amount of erudition on the background of those who surround Obama.  Beck warned years ago that the Obama administration would attempt to spend America into crisis because it is only from crisis that the extreme Left stands a chance of seizing power.  Of course, the Left never being as bright as they think they are, when the crisis hits, it is usually the extreme Right who actually succeed in grabbing the levers of power - see Spain, Germany and various South American nations in the recent past, and Greece in the very near future! 

That is why it is so utterly crucial that Obama be defeated in November.  As I half expected, the Republicans have made a hash of choosing an opponent and now all bets are off.  The only hope is that both houses of the Congress go Republican as a means of slamming the breaks on.  If that does not happen then, in my opinion, the USA is on the way out as a global power.

Mark Steyn offers a suitably sad but sardonic commentary on the whole miserable business which is well worth reading in full.

 

Did the Queen of America just die?

Honestly, I cannot tell a lie, yesterday, and I have difficulty telling you this, I actually switched over to BBC News.  Yes, yes, utterly shame-making, I know, but I had to do it.  Sky News, always my favourite channel had been taken over by non-stop coverage of the funeral of some American songstress.  It went on and on and on, and more in hope than expectation I switched to Fox News but they went on and on and on even longer than Sky!  It was then, in desperation, because of course, as you know, I am a news junkie, I picked up my 'do-flicker-thingie' - and why is that bloody thing so easy to find when you don't really care, but lost for an eternity when you're desperate to get to another programme? - where was I? - oh, yes  - anyway, with trembling fingers (I was actually in trauma) I found myself pressing the BBC buttons, muttering something along the lines of 'oh, well, it's certainly going to be Left-wing crapola but at least it will be news', when, to my intense irritation there was yet more coverage of the funeral of the Queen of America!  Was all this TV coverage really an American plot (probably the CIA!) to pay us back for boring them rigid with Will and Kate's wedding?  I shall never know, but like a heroin addict coming off his habit, I was forced to do without news for most of the day.  I believe I actually conversed with the 'Memsahib' which shocked her deeply!

Anyway, after all that, surely the longest funeral in world history, I learn this morning that the poor lady hasn't even been buried yet!  Please don't tell me I am going to have to go through it all again.

 

And whilst we're on the subject, what would you do about this?

I do apologise.  I realise this blog is rapidly coming to resemble a school examination, or even worse, an interrogation.  Still, sometimes it's good for the brain, or the soul, or something, to put ourselves in the position of our 'glorious leaders' and try and imagine what we would do in certain circumstances.  Let's start with Iran.

Obviously we are not privy to the intelligence (if any of reliability exists), nor do we know the assessments sent in by all our embassies, but even so, we can take an educated guess and therefore a semi-educated theoretical decision.  There can be no doubt that Iran is striving by all means possible to achieve a nuclear weapon capacity.  The proof lies in their behaviour over the last few years in which they have been given, and spurned, several opportunities to be open and above board with what they were up to.  Their economy, and therefore their governmental standing with their people, is suffering grievously as a result of their secrecy.  Equally, their constant threats to exterminate the state of Israel (with an unspoken implication that others might follow) have been repeated too often to be dismissed as the ravings of an exceptional fanatic.  So let us take it as a given that they are indeed trying to achieve a nuclear weapon capacity and that leaves us with the next question: how far have they progressed?  This is tricky.  Governments of the sort that is running Iran today are usually given to hyperbole, or boasting, if you prefer, and I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of bluster involved.  However, if we grant that they are trying, then it becomes a question of 'when' not 'if'.

Setting aside Israel (and that's a laugh!), for the moment, we (by which I mean 'the west') need to ask ourselves whether we can live with a nuclear Iran?  To begin with, it will be a nuclear Iran with the capability of delivering missiles into the area of the middle east and the eastern Mediterranean.  However, it will not be too long before, with the help of their 'allies', they possess the means to deliver missiles into western Europe. You might ask why they would do that to which I can only reply with the answer to the old question as to why dogs lick their 'blx'? - because they can!

Given all of that there seems to me to be only two possible policies by way of response.  Either we go to war with them now and destroy their capability; or, we attempt a repetition of the old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy which kept the Soviets from indulging their ambitions.  On the face of it, the latter is the more attractive proposition, however, it is necessary to remember that there has been a long-held school of thought, epitomised by Enoch Powell yesterday and Andrew Alexander today, which holds that the Soviets (ie, Russia) never did hold serious ambitions to expand into western Europe having satisfied its security arrangements by holding eastern Europe as a buffer.  The only time they allowed their ambitions to get the better of them was in trying to place missiles in Cuba and they very quickly backed down when faced with American determination.  Turning to Tehran, can we say the same thing about the government there?

It is at this point that my lack of expertise, and access to the expertise of others, makes it almost impossible for an amateur to offer an answer.  Undoubtedly there is an element of bombast is what the Iranian government says and threatens, however, there is a crucial difference, it seems to me, between them and the old Soviet government.  In the latter case, rule was very much from the top down.  The Soviet leadership was not bothered by thousands of communist fanatics constantly agitating to exterminate the west.  The Iranian government is!  Their current leadership might look all-powerful but I suspect that they are uneasily aware that at the next level down anti-Israel and anti-western fanaticism is rife, rampant and ready to take the place of any leader who shows weakness.  Finally, and this is a chilling factor, there are a great many extreme Islamists who positively welcome death and martyrdom if at that same time they can bring death and destruction down onto Israel and the west.  Somehow, I never saw Stalin or Brezhnev as being the stuff of martyrs!  However, lest anyone suppose that I am being 'Persian-ist'(!), let me remind you that it is only a little over 50-odd years ago that we saw the suicidal martyrdom of one of our very own, home-grown, European fanatics who positively relished his and his nation's gottadamerung!

Even so, before we choose the extreme option of war, we need to consider the likely ramifications that will follow.  At this point is necessary to do what the German generals failed to do, that is, to decide what the grand strategic aim is and then suit the means best likely to achieve it.  For example, after Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope - oh, I do hope! - there will be no more talk of "nation-building".  The purpose of military action against Iran is twofold: first, to destroy their nuclear capabilities; second, to maintain oil supplies through the Gulf.  We have no interest worth the 'bones of a single grenadier' in who governs Iran although, as an adjunct to military action, it would be no bad thing if we severely damaged the current government.  Not because we could entertain hopes of a better one to follow but simply pour encourager les autres.  So, putting it more brutally, we must destroy - utterly - the sites and laboratories, we must kill as many scientists and technologists as possible,  and as many members of the government (by which I mean the ruling elite) as possible.  In effect, we go in, do what we can, and then get out!

Happily, if that is quite the word, with today's sophisticated weaponry that is an achievable aim.  There is no such thing as a 'surgical strike' because 'shit always happens' but every effort should be made to avoid civilian collateral damage.  However, I suspect such an operation can only be achieved by the Americans and not by the Israelis acting alone.  There is no avoiding the fact that such an action will have huge repurcussions in the world's economy but they need not be long-lasting.  Iran controls virtually the entire east coast of the Gulf and keeping their raiders away from the oil tankers will be tricky.  However, the west coast is almost entirely controlled by mega-rich oil states who, being Arab not Persian, can be relied upon to help in the policing of the waters upon which they rely for their wealth.

So what would I do?  I would go for "war, war" and no more "jaw, jaw"!

Additional:  So much for my (and others I have read) amateur opinion that Israel would be unable to inflict really serious damage on the Iranian facilities.  Here is a report by David Goldman at PJ Media quoting a long article in Die Welt by a German defence expert, Hans Rühle, with particular knowledge of missile warfare: 

Rühle is highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s. Each of the F-15s would carry two of the GBU-28 bunker busters, with the F-16s armed with smaller bombs. [...]

Most importantly, Rühle believes that it would take Iran a decade to restore its capabilities — with the exception of Isfahan — unless special forces could inflict more damage from the ground than was possible from the air. There are risks, of course: the Russians might have secretly given Iran more advanced surface-to-air missiles; refueling might be interdicted along a route that overflies potentially hostile countries; and Iran’s proxies (Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas) might retaliate. Nonetheless, he concludes that Israel could lastingly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

To paraphrase Claudius, again: Do it, Israel!

 

I may have to give up this blogging lark

Sometimes, well, actually, for me, I have lost count of the times, you just have to admit that you are out-classed and out-performed.  I have enjoyed my part in the new national sport of poking (please, behave yourselves!) fun at the Lesbian-Straightener but my laboured wit has been shown up for the leaden stodge that it is by an absolutely brilliant and hilarious piece by Matthew Norman in The Telegraph.  It is illustrated by an equally excellent sketch by Elizabeth Cook which tells the whole story without any words at all!

 

So what would you - yes, YOU - do in the circumstances?

Damn!  That book (see previous post) is forcing me to think.  What would you do if your country was captured, so to speak, by a criminal magalomaniac who had wooed the majority of your fellow countrymen to his support and won a free and fair election?  Bear in mind that his true criminality did not begin to show itself until after he had won the election.  It is also important that you imagine such a thing happening now - today - and that therefore you have no idea what the future holds or where this man will lead you and your country? 

What would you do?

He might threaten all sorts of extreme actions but, hey, who believes anything a politician on the make says?  And anyway, your country is at this very moment a complete economic disaster brought about, you believe (not without reason), by the current crop of useless politicians who have allowed themselves to be bullied by foreign governments.

What would you do?

You have a good job in government and this allows you to see the damage your country and your countrymen are suffering.  You have a family including young children who are depending on you as you, in turn, depend on a steady job and income.  All your friends and aquaintances are extolling the breath of fresh political air your new leader, despite his somewhat florid style of speech, is promising to breath into your nation.

What would you do?

The future for your country looks bleak but as time goes on under the new man's leadership things definitely look better and prospects for the future are improving almost month by month.  True, his government has pulled one or two strokes which are not, strictly-speaking, absolutely proper in an old-fashioned sense but the indubitable fact is that the shambles of previous governments have been swept away and things are really beginning to work again.

What would you do?

A few years later the country has been transformed.  It is now a prosperous and efficient economy with the population hard at work and earning good money.  Your armed forces have been reconstructed and are now fit for purpose.  Your nation is once again a power in global politics whose views are eagerly sought by others on various international matters.  True, there have been some unfortunate internal policy mistakes made by the government which have gone against your sense of natural justice, but there is no doubt that the country has prospered, as indeed have you and your family.

What would you do?

Now your country is being threatened.  All the media are full of the dangers surrounding your nation.  Your leader, who has worked such enormous miracles, constantly warns you  that neighbouring powers are determined to set your beloved homeland back to where it was, a second-rate, economic basket-case.  All your new-found prosperity might be taken away.  From the record of his achievements, your leader is obviously a shrewd, if ruthless, operator who knows and understands the world.  Do you know any better?  Can you see into the future? Could you commit treason?

What would you do?

Well, in somewhat simplified terms I have made the point, I think.  That was very much the dilemma facing the likes of Gen. von Manstein and millions of other Germans during the 1930s.  Some, a very rare few, did see the reality and the likely outcome and took steps.  Alas, for some of them the steps were towards an even worse outcome, and here I refer to the very brave but foolish Germans who joined the 'Red Orchestra' spy network which fed tremendously useful intelligence to the Russians - and which Stalin ignored!

So, what would you do?

 

Manstein: Hitler's greatest general?

I have placed a question mark at the end of my title but Maj. Gen. (ret'd) Mungo Melvin leaves it as a statement of fact in the title to his biography of this very enigmatic man.  I am only on p. 58 of this superb book and there are another 450-odd to go so perhaps I am pushing my luck by giving it a 'rave revue' already!  However, two things are instantly very clear.  First, von Manstein was a superb fighting general who deserves a proper biography; and second, Gen. Melvin is a very literate and highly intelligent writer more than capable of explaining and illustrating von Manstein's strengths and weaknesses.  It is also obvious from the fact that Melvin only reached the rank of Major-General that he was too intelligent for his military confreres which is why, I guess, that he went no higher in rank - intelligence, smacking of intellectualism, is not encouraged in the British army!  Knowing it as I do, I suspect that the fact that he was an engineer cannot have helped, either.  (I have some fellow-feeling because I, too, began what I laughingly call my military 'career' as a member of the Royal Engineers and it took me 9 years to reach the rank of corporal.  Mind you, I was thick!)

One fascinating point that he raises, of which hitherto I have only vaguely suspected, is that although the German officer class was superb and well above all others at the tactical and operational level, they hardly gave a thought to what I might call the geo-strategic level.  To give but two examples.  You only have to say, slowly, that in 1906 von Schlieffen's operational plan was to destroy the entire French army in six weeks to realise that, the world being the way it is, that was a rather risky idea!  Similarly, Hitler's assault on Russia broke the 1st rule of war which states that you should never invade Russia.  (The 2nd rule is that you should never attack America however soft and dopey it looks!)  The German generals religiously (and I use that word deliberately) worked out in superbly efficient detail exactly how the attack should be executed but none of them appear to have told Hitler that it was madness and that disaster would surely and inexorably follow because of geo-strategic considerations which had not been, er, considered!

I don't care, rash fellow that I am, but from the basis of having read 58 excellent and fascinating pages, if you have an interest in military history - buy this book!

 

"Gissa job"

Thus spake Yosser Hughes, the standard-bearer for anti-Thatcherite tossers everywhere in the 'good old days' of the 1980s.  It's a good job the BBC is short of money at the moment because you just know that if they had any they would be scurrying around to find some Leftie writer to knock up yet another series on the scourge of unemployment.  Not, mind you, that I am saying that unemployment is not a scourge, just that it is a different sort of 'scourge', a rather more complex 'scourge' than most Lefties allow.  Here is a diagram, courtesy of  the ONS and reproduced by Jonathon Jones at The Coffee House:

Golly-Gosh, I bet Clegg & Co. (to say nothing of Huhne - I mean, please, say nothing of Huhne) didn't tell you that would happen when they urged us to join up with Europe.  One begins to wonder just how many Polish plumbers there can be?!  As Jones emphasises, it is not enough for more jobs to be created because that will have little or no effect on the unemployed (or unemployable) Brits, particularly the young:

the unemployment rate of 16-24 year olds at 22 per cent

 To stand any chance of improving their lot in life we must all hope that Mr. Gove and his steady pressure on the 'edukashun serviss' is maintained for several years.  Despite his somewhat unprepossessing looks, I gain the impression that Gove is slowly but surely tightening the screws in the lackadaisical phantasy-land inhabited by teachers and so-called 'educationists'.  This, of course, needs to go hand-in-hand with the changes to a welfare system which might aid the needy but also rewards the idle.

 

Browned off luvvies!

I have a very faint personal interest in this story on two counts.  First, I am an amateur 'luvvie' myself although not of the operatic sort.  Secondly, this particular 'luvvie' outfit is based in Yeovil which is just down the road from me.  I will allow The Daily Mail to give the essence of the story:

Actors in an amateur dramatics society claim they were booted off the cast of their latest production - after they refused to 'black up'.

Disgusted Ros Broad was horrified when cast members were ordered to coat their faces in ‘mahogany brown’ make-up for famous musical South Pacific.

 When she and three other actors refused to don the face paint they were ‘shown the door’, she claims.

I offer you a photograph of Mrs. Ros Broad only to indicate that blacked up or not she would have to be a terrific actress to convince me that she was a South Sea Islander!

For a start she would have to dye her hair black or hire a good wig!  There seems to be some confusion on her part as to exactly what she was complaining about.  In one paragraph she is quoted as saying:

'We just couldn’t believe we were asked to do it in this day and age - it is just not acceptable. Four of us felt uncomfortable and offended.

So it was a matter of principle, then?  Well, not exactly:

'We were only going to be on stage for around four minutes but there appeared to be no willingness to compromise on the darkness of the make-up.

'We would have been happy to have had a light tan colour but the darkness of the paint was totally inappropriate. Morally it is unacceptable and ethically it is indefensible.

Oh, I see, the Obama principle - tan is good, black is, er, not so good!  What a sigh of relief the director must have exhaled when this dimwit marched off stage never to return.

These days, of course, theatre makes huge demands on the imagination of their audiences.   A few years ago I saw an RSC production of Twelfth Night in which Viola was a pretty English girl and her twin brother was Indian!  Virtually every Shakespearean history play I see has one or two Earls of this or Dukes of that who are as black as ebony.  I don't care how often anyone chides me for my political incorrectness, like a tiny pebble in your shoe it is both a distraction and an irritation.  All theatre relies on an audience using its imagination because, of course, the entire process is one of subterfuge and pretence, but it is important that directors and actors help an audience along the way, not hurl obvious impediments in their path.

 

'All the non-news that is totally unfit to print'!

That's our proud motto, here at Duff & Nonsense, so we make no apologies for publishing this photo:

and telling you this pussy story - please, I do the jokes round here, do try and be serious!  Actually, it is a very sad pussy story because, according to the Anorak site, this lady, Amanda Simmons, aka Mandy Mountain, of Charleston, West Virginia, was tasked with looking after a neighbour's kitten.  Alas:

She says that when her lover went to inspect her chub at close quarters he spotted a cat (avoid obvious joke – ed). The cat was dead. Mandy had sat on it.

At this point I must rely on my numerous American readers to translate "chub", although, on second thoughts, perhaps I don't really want to know.  Anyway, several interesting questions arise which Anorak fails to answer.  Who is her lover?  Is he actually blind?  How on earth did he lift her in order to find the dead cat?  And, finally, does he realise that he has just demonstrated the proof of Schrödinger's interpretation of quantum mechanics?  Until he lifted 'Mandy Mountain' - what a man! - the cat was, so to speak, both alive and dead.  By his superhuman efforts he collapsed an infinite series of possibilities into a single reality.  He also risked a serious hernia!

There is one further question which occurred to me as I studied the photograph before I read the story, and that is, why does she bother to paint her toe nails?  A supplementary question instantly arose - how does she paint her toe nails?  There are certain other questions of a technical but delicate nature that I would like to pose to her lover but they are not suitable for a high-minded blog like this whose regular readers are noted for their fastidious good taste - who sniggered?

I am grateful - if that is quite the word - to the 'usual suspects' over at IHTM.

Oh, and by the way, don't blame me if you spewed hot coffee all over your keyboards, I don't invent the news, I just report it!

 

This Blog is a gloat-free zone!

And that is an order!

Look, I told you, absolutely no gloating is allowed! This Blog prides itself on its high-minded sense of British fair play in which a lesbian-straightener distinguished politician of the very highest moral rectitude is always considered innocent until proven guilty.  The sight of this poor man being hauled in front of the 'Cocklecarrots' to stand side-by-side in the dock with the ex-wife who grassed him up inadvertently let slip some information, which has been wildly taken out of context, is no cause for celebration and if I could only get the cork back in this bottle of 'champers', I would.  To indulge in gloating and celebration over a fallen politician is demeaning to the gloater and indicates a small, cramped and mean-minded personality.  (Oh, alright, if the cork's out I'll just have a couple of glasses!)

 

Who are the Greeks fighting - the Trojans?

I am very grateful to John Redwood's always shrewd observations in his daily diary.  He observes and thinks, and thereby makes me pause and think.  There has been a great deal of sympathy extended to poor little Greece because she is being portrayed as the victim of a rampant, bullying Germany.  There is an element of truth in this because, as we all know, money-lenders are never very soft at heart!  However, it shouldn't be forgotten that most of the blame for Greek misery lies in Greek behaviour.  Their politicians are a bunch of creeps and crooks and are collectively unfit for purpose.  However, Greece is a democracy and these poltroons were voted in by the Greek people.  Thus, my sympathy for these Greek 'stoopids' is very limited.

Meanwhile, Mr. Redwood points an accusing finger at the Greek military which appears to be a great fat, festering boil on the national finances:

The Greek military comprises  around 170,000 active personnel paid by the state, with a further 280,000 in the reserve forces. [...]

The Greek navy has around 80 warships. The army has more than 1200 tanks. The airforce has around 1000 planes and helicopters.

Crikey!  I wish we could afford armed services of that size.  According to Mr. Redwood, the Greeks justify this because of their doubts concerning their neighbours.  Obviously, their eyes rarely stray from watching Turkey, their ancient enemy, but as Mr. Redwood points out, Greece has security guarantees from the west - not least because she is a member of NATO.  The eastern Mediterranean is a key area of strategic interest to the west and I doubt that Greece need fear invasion.

Of course, given the track record of Greek generals in the fairly recent past, it will take a brave politican to suggest deep cuts in the armed services!

 

"Measure for Measure": random thoughts

Since my recall to the stage for just one last performance (do stop cheering!) I have been pondering on the mysteries of Measure for Meaasure.  It is known in 'the Shakespeare trade' as 'a problem play' and for several good reasons, not the least because there are not too many comedies which feature an attempted rape!  Rather than bore on at too much length in one post I will jot down my random thoughts as and when they occur.

One of the main problems is the central character, the Duke of Vienna.  In my talks on the subject I refer to him as someone who today we would call one of 'the Great and the Good', or 'a total plonker', depending on your viewpoint.  It is always immensely difficult to pin down the real William Shakespeare because part of his genius lies in his ability to speak to us through the mouths of his characters and they, of course, express their thoughts, not necessarily, his.  However, there is one theme that runs though all of of his p0litical plays and that is his utterly bourgois insistence that rulers should rule, that those set in power above the hoi polloi must take on their responsibilities, that above and beyond all else, the rule of law must be imposed and defended - or chaos will ensue.  Here, from Troilus and Cressida are some extracts from the famous speech by that arch-conservative, Ulysses, which begins with an implied criticism of the Greek king's limp rule which has allowed faction and dispute to erupt:

The specialty of rule hath been neglected:
And, look, how many Grecian tents do stand
Hollow upon this plain, so many hollow factions.

Then, warming to his theme, he describes in vivid poetry what happens when dissension rules:

The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office and custom, in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet Sol
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose medicinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts, like the commandment of a king,
Sans check to good and bad: but when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!
What raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixure!

The city state of Vienna under the lax rule of its royal duke has fallen into almost total chaos, liberty has turned to licence and the entire city is a stewpot of brothels, gambling dens and bars.  Drunkeness and licentiousness run rife.  (Remind you of anywhere, my Brit friends?)  However, the Duke, for reasons never convincinglyy explained, appoints a lawyer, Lord Angelo, to the role of governor with full powers whilst he, the Duke, goes abroad on some spurious diplomatic mission.  (In fact he stays, disguised as a friar, to watch what happens.)

Now the problem lies in the nature of the Duke.  Some directors play him as youthful and thus without experience, although that does not quite chime with the text.  He cannot be played as unschooled because, by his own admission, he has spent most of his life locked in his study with his nose in books which is part of the reason why his state, for which he is responsible, is such a quagmire of vice.  A more serious analysis, and in my opinion a very shrewd and subtle one, has it that Shakespeare, in his usual sly, subversive manner was suggesting that the Duke stands for God!  That this bumbling, well-meaning plonker is a symbol for the Creator of the universe who seems to have stepped back from His responsibilites and just left the people He created get on with it as best - or worst - as they can.  This, obviously, was a highly dangerous proposition in the religious age in which Shakespeare lived.  But there again, there is no doubt, as numerous other examples demonstrate, that Shakespeare was possessed of an exceedingly subtle, sophisticated mind that allowed him to tip-toe through such minefields unscathed - although Richard II, another highly political play on the subject of a weak king, nearly caught him out.

However, I forgive the silly old Duke everything because he delivers this little passage of true political wisdom as he ponders on how Lord Angelo will cope with his new duties:

                                                   hence shall we see,
If power change purpose, what our seemers be.

 Or, as I tusually put it, many a time and oft', you never really know about these damned politicians until they are in office! 

 

Encounters of the worst kind!

Here's a little brain-teaser for you to wrestle with over your tea break: how much would you pay not to go to dinner with 'Harry Harperson'?  For the benefit of my foreign readers I should explain that 'Harry Harperson' is actually Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, a rich socialist, a militant feminist and, judging by some of the gibberish she spouts, the victim of a botched lobotomy.

I ask the question because, according to Guido, anyone who is deaf, dumb, blind and lacking a sense of smell, can pay £750 a plate(*) and attend a dinner not just with 'Harry Harperson' but with the entire Labour Party Wimmin's Women's Group - aaaaaaaaaaaargh, get me outta here - NOW! 

I'm afraid to say, and it will come as a shock, I know, but several of Guido's commenters have let the side down with some less than gentlemanly comments - even if they did have me falling on the floor howling with laughter!

(*) All 'plate' and 'plating' double entendre jokes are available at Guido's place.  This blog, when it can stop laughing, likes to rise above that sort of thing!  Oh God . . . I'm off again  . . . that Guido . . . he'll be the death of me  . . .

 

'Gawd bless 'Er Majesty!'

Matt Wardman over at Anna Raccoon's place mounts a stout if redundent defence of monarchy.  I use the word 'redundent' because, as he indicates, Republicanism is getting nowhere.  Perhaps his most effective argument is when he takes the life of the oldest human ever to have lived in modern times, a certain Jeanne Louise Calment, a French lady who lived from 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997.  He then tots up the number of different governments La France has had to invent during those years.  He then goes back 30 years prior to Mde. Calment's birth and the number almost doubles.  Meanwhile, of course, we tottered on gradually changing what might be called the peripherals of our national governance whilst maintaining the monarchy as our core.

He also points out that support for the monarchy as evidenced by various polls has hardly changed in the last 15 years.  And in a final killer point he reminds us that a list of the most admired European states would probably include the Scandinavians and the Dutch and four out of the five have constitutional monarchs.  It's a good article and worth reading in full.

My own argument in favour of the monarchy is unfair, cruel, brutal but conclusive - John Prescott!  He is about to stand for election as a Chief Constable somewhere 'ooop North' and that has brough his deeply unloveable features back onto my TV screen.  It reminds me that back in the Blair days he was thought by some Republicans to be the sort of candidate we could adopt as a new-style President of the United Kingdom.  Need I say more?  Well, only, God bless Her Majesty and may she live long to rule over us!

 

So how stand things in 'plucky little Israel'?

As with most of the subjects about which I write on this blog my knowledge of Israel is minute, and that's putting it at its best!  So all the more reason for me to digest a very useful and measured impression of the country by Lazar Berman of The American Enterprise Institute.  He has recently payed a semi-official visit to Israel during which he was granted access to the Israeli 'establishment'.  The problems pressing in against this little nation are manifold and deadly serious.  I have already touched, in a post last week, on the most dangerous one that emanates from Iran and its nuclear capability.  Obviously, no-one was going to tell Mr. Berman if and when the expected attack will take place but there was absolutely no euphoria at even the the theoretical possibility.  All the top brass stressed the huge technical difficulties facing the Israeli air force with a relatively small number of planes plus an enormous distance to travel.  General opinion seemed to be that it should/could only be undertaken successfully in partnership with the Americans.  (With Obama in charge - fat chance!)  However, as one shrewd observer said some time ago, the chances of an Israeli strike will be at its highest when the Israeli's cease to talk about it!  No-one, according to Mr. Berman, is very sanguine about the prospects and they all realise that whatever the result there will be a huge price to pay in Israel.

Another, but internal, difficulty is that posed by the Haredim, the ultra-Right-wing, orthodox Jews who appear to be the mirror image of the worst sort of fanatical Islamists.  I have picked up reports elsewhere on the subject of their increasingly belligerent behaviour whereby they insist on segregation of women (not all bad, then ? - just kidding, ladies!) and the reduction of their status to that of domestic chattels.  According to Mr. Berman, Israeli society is pushing back against the pressure from this militant minority.

As for the so-called 'Arab Spring', opinion in Israel appears to be divided.  On the whole the Israelis think it better to maintain a low profile and avoid supporting one side or the other, an emminently sensible policy that should have been adopted by HMG.  As for the prospects of a long-term deal between Israel and the Palestinians - well, there aren't any!  No-one's going to cut any deals until the current, bubbling cauldron settles down again.

Altogether an interesting and informative article which might not be definitive but is well worth reading 

Is the 'Kaiserin' about to bomb Athens out?

As so often I am obliged to my e-pal, Richard North of EU Referendum, who must, I think, spend every minute of every waking hour reading every newspaper in the world - and who then, presumably, writes his many detailed posts in his sleep!  Whatever, he has been quick to catch the change of mood in Europe generally and Germany in particular.  Mrs. Merkel continues to protest her support for Greece in its current travails but, according to Der Spiegel, the mood in German political circles has now changed with more and more German politicians giving up on the intractable problem that Greece has become.  Hitherto, as I have frequently pointed out, no weight can be attached to anything a Greek politician promises (lest I be accused of 'Greece-ism' let me stress that this is an international political characteristic!) but now the problem has altered.  It has slowly dawned on the whole European apparat that even if the Greeks could deliver on the crushing austerity needed it would not solve the problem.  Not the least of the causes of the sudden fears and doubts is that irritating concept despised by everyone in Brussels  - democracy!  The Greeks have been promised an election in April and who thinks that any politician in favour of foreign diktat is going to get a single vote?

The only solution, if that is quite the right word, is bankruptcy.  This will be hellish for the Greeks with civil servants unpaid and pensions severed.  However, the re-introduction of the drachma at a record low against other currencies, especially the euro, would make Greece the holiday centre of the world once again - and leave the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians with something to think about!  Needless to say, Brussels/Berlin will do almost anything to avoid such a repugnant slur on their beloved euro and so the idea is now being mooted that Greece be allowed to go bankrupt within the euro system.  This would mean all the others taking huge hits, particularly amongst their banking sector, but at least a figleaf of respectability would remain to cover the blushes of the euro currency.  However, as I see it, apart from lifting the debt burden from Greece, it would not assist in allowing natural growth to begin again.

The folly of politicians wedded to great political constructions is the stuff of every history book ever written.  As we have watched this particular European opéra buffe it has provided great entertainment even as we dread the tragedy that is to ensue.  That is has taken supposedly educated, clever and even intelligent men and women so long to face reality is, or would be, quite extraordinary were it not for the fact that it has all happened before 'many a time and oft'.

Moody blues

It was only a few weeks ago that I wondered when the 'red-braces brigade' would come after us the way they had the French and today, lo and behold, Moody's Credit Rating Agency has put the UK on warning.  Happily for little 'Georgie Porgie' busy playing at bankers in the Treasury the inflation figures also came out today and showed a further 'drop'.  I use inverted commas because, of course, that 'drop' is mostly his stupid VAT rise dropping out of the 12-month figures.  The inflation that it caused has not suddenly disappeared, we all felt it and the scars are still vivid.  Commodity prices are still on the up as you will notice when you fill your car.  The fact is that this so-called government has flinched in the face of difficult decisions.  They could have seized the opportunity offered 18 months ago when people were braced to expect genuine austerity.  Instead the government kept singing the austerity anthem but in fact there has been little or no such thing. 

Once again, Liam Halligan in The Telegraph, tells it the way it is, with my emphases throughout:

QE [Quantiative Easing, or, printing money] has also facilitated circular financing, with the state effectively borrowing from the state, so allowing the UK government to dodge the really big fiscal decisions. The Coalition talks a good game on “austerity”. When debt interest costs are included, though, government spending is still going up.

This is true even though QE is suppressing official borrowing costs, by keeping demand strong. Yet very little of that demand is coming from genuine buyers exercising their independent judgment.

The whole exercise is a circular racket designed to allow the government to keep on printing money which it lends to itself thus allowing it to keep on spending and keep on avoiding the difficult decisions which need to be taken:

Since early 2009, the Bank of England has bought more than half the £475bn of IOUs sold by the UK government. Another £100bn or so were bought by high street banks either owned by the government, and/or forced to buy more in the name of “macro-prudential regulation”. UK pension funds, run by professional investors acting largely as they wish, have reduced their gilt holdings over the last three years.

So QE is designed to pump money into badly-run banks above and beyond the headline “bail-out” numbers. It also means the government can keep borrowing at historically high levels while not immediately feel the impact in terms of more punitive borrowing costs.

Mervyn King should have his knighthood rescinded for being a party to this monstrous fraud.  'Dave and his Dimiwts' should be swept from office for being the pusillanimous poltroons that they are but one huge difficulty would still remain - trying to find anyone else on the political scene with the brains and the balls to do what is really needed.

 

Never, ever, even for a second, take your eyes off the bastards!

In a way, I suppose this is a follow-on from my previous post because it provides the perfect example of what the political class get up to when they think they are not being watched.  In this case it is even more important because the story concerns the global political class where the insane dementia is even more rampant.  I am obliged to Commentary magazine for pointing me in the direction of a story by George Russell of Fox News.  He has obtained, by means he does not disclose (so it's a good job he's not British - see post below), a copy of the confidential minutes of a secret meeting held in a Long Island mansion last October.  It was chaired by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, and was attended by 30-odd of his principal UN advisors.  This exclusive group have given themselves a long title which carefully obscures the nature of their business.  I will abbreviate it to the CEB.  It is important to understand that without Mr. Russell's journalistic efforts you would know nothing of this meeting which the participants had made considerable efforts to keep private. 

So, what were they up to?  Well, you can read the actual minutes but for a summary you can rely on Mr. Russell's summary:

•    “the catalyst” for solidifying a global economic, social and political agenda, built around “green economy” goals

•   a means to “reorient public and private decision-making” to make the world’s poorest people the new economy’s “main beneficiaries,”

•   a method of also reorienting national decision-making in countries around the world to put the new agenda “at the heart of national ministries,”

•   the occasion to create new bodies, like a U.N. Sustainable Development Council, similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council, to help guide the global process further in the years ahead, or give additional responsibilities to the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the world body’s chief environmental agency.

Don't you just love their language?  Like, "green economy", "re-orientate public and private decision making", and all with the aim of putting the ideas of these 30-odd self-appointed apparatchiks "at the heart of national ministeries".  Apparently, a leading light at this little gathering was some Chinese cove called Sha Zukang and he was positively brimming with ideas to, er, "re-orientate your decision-making".  Yeeees, I bet he was !

The participants were disappointed at the set-back they suffered at the last global warming conference in Durban, South Africa but they recognised that the world financial situation was not conducive - for the moment - in ramming insinuating these notions of global socialism into mainly western nations.  But, "stick around, kid, you ain't seen nuthin' yet", these operators plot and plan for the long term.

 

"The Sun - We Love It!"

Well, actually, I don't except in an abstract sense - you know, it's like fancying the obviously naughty bit of stuff across the road but you wouldn't want to be caught 'bang to rights' with her!  Anyway, The Sun is in big trouble and today Trevor Kavanagh unleashes a counter-attack at the political class and their glove-puppets, 'Her Majesty's Plod', who seem to be adopting the procedures of the KGB or the Gestapo as they go about their business.  For example is it really necessary as Kavanagh describes that they raid houses at 4.00 am and that:

Wives and children have been humiliated as up to 20 officers at a time rip up floorboards and sift through intimate possessions, love letters and entirely private documents.

What is their alleged crime?  Possibly, because no-one has been charged as yet, bunging government employees a few quid, or offering them slap-up dinners at the best restaurants in town, in order to get hold of information.  Not, I stress, information likely to endanger the state but almost certainly information likely to be embarrassing for the political classes who rule over us.  To call this 'bribery' is to 'gang-bang' yet another word out of all meaning.  Just pause and remember some of the scandals that the hacks have exposed over the years including the juiciest of them all, MPs' expenses which was obtained by buying stolen documents.   

Given the combined weight of police activity aimed at curtailing press activity - there are three separate investigations under way with 171 officers employed, some of them having been taken of major crimes and security investigations - you would expect (if you were dumb enough) for the 'liberal' press to come out with a screech of protest.  Instead, all The Guardian can raise is a little whimper in the form of a 'on the one hand' and 'on the other hand' editorial which is as utterly pathetic as it is predictable.

Whether you read it or not, if 'the authorities' are successful and The Sun is castrated we will all end up squeaking in high pitched voices!

 

'The Kraut' warns: not if but when!

My title has taken a slight liberty with the words of Charles Krauthammer because, although he is forecasting that Israel will whack Iran during the course of this year, he adds the caveat that they will do so 'if nothing changes'.  The Secretary of Defence has said the same thing and pinpoints April, May, June as very likely.  'The Kraut' echoes my own long-held view that the Israelis have six million reasons to be utterly ruthless when faced with an implaccable enemy.  Unlike other nations (not a million miles from our very own 'septic Isle'), the Israelis are more than willing to accept that history can, and frequently does, repeat itself, albeit, in different guises.  The lunatic fringe in Iran have spelled out their intention to annihilate Israel and all its occupants.  There is absolutely no way that the Israeli government will allow them to pass beyond the point of no return in their programme to build a nuclear weapon and delivery system.

To analyse the repurcussions of an Israeli strike (or more likely, strikes) is way above my ex-corporal pay-grade but some things seem fairly obvious.  First, the Iranians will attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz which will send the price of oil into space!  Happily, The USA has a carrier to hand (we do not - well done, Dave!) so I doubt that their efforts will succeed.  The Obama administration will have to step delicately and shrewdly to limit their action strictly to protection of the seaways and avoid being embroiled in an out-and-out war with Iran - which, of course, the Iranian leadership will try to engineer.  My belief in the ability of an American government to act delicately has been under severe strain recently, as regular readers will know, so all I can do is hope for the best.  Secondly, we should not be too alarmed at Gulf Arab re-action.  They will huff 'n' puff for publicity purposes but most of them, especially the oil rich ones, will be quietly pleased.  More troublesome will be the re-action of Egypt, which given its control of the Suez canal and the somewhat shakey nature of the military junta, could be crucial.  No doubt the Israelis will be taking that into account as they plot their moves.

The economic side-draft from such a conflagration will add stress to the already trembling euro economies and if it brings their unresolved matters to a head then it's not all bad news!  Here in Britain we must be deeply grateful that, for a change, there is absolutely no way for us to be involved.  Hague and his FO 'mandarins-not' will no doubt get themselves very excited but most of us have long come to the conclusion that our influence anywhere is minimal when it is not downright trivial.  However, if the Israelis can deliver a coup de grâce and destroy, or at least set back for several years, the Iranian nuclear programme, we can all breath a little easier and if it sets back our already puny economy still further then it is a price worth paying, in my opinion.  So let's hear it for 'plucky little Israel'!

Yet more jollifications

Yet another birthday celebration so I am away Saturday, back Sunday evening.

Theatreland electrified by the news!

Excitement is rife amongst theatre-lovers at the news of an imminent come-back performance by one of the great stage performers of the age - er, that's me, in case you're wondering!  Yes, indeed, forced by lonely exile 'down 'ere in the west country' to forego all thespian activity I have been invited back to perform once more.  I suspect that public pressure played its part following my startling interpretation of the intensely difficult role of 'Gravedigger 2' of which people still talk in hushed terms, well, they do when I'm around because, I suppose, it's always difficult to approach a star.  Anyway, I suspect that due to public pressure I have been invited to play the lead in "Ye Old Mysterie of Abhorson" by William Shakespeare.  Of course, some of you, with only a smattering of knowledge of the works of the Bard will know it better by its common title "Measure for Measure".  Most people, knowing no better, assume the play is concerned with a nun, a duke and a wicked lawyer but, of course, if you understand the play at its more fundamantal level you soon realise that it is really concerned with the mysterious Abhorson, a public executioner who, whilst he only makes two appearances, is absolutely key to the entire play!  It is this critical role that I have been asked to perform.  So important is this character in the play that I have an understudy.  As it happens, he is playing 7 of the 8 performances but I am led to believe that he needs the practice.  I, however, will be starring on the Monday night of the run, so if you live in the Twickenham area stand by for traffic jams as the TV crews and all those stretch limos pour in to town. 

I need cheering up

And so do you, if like me earlier in the week, you have been hit with a cold (assuming you are a lady) or life-threatening Man Flu (if you are not)!  And no-one cheers you up quicker and better than Ogden Nash, and so I give you:

THE COMMON COLD by Ogden Nash

 

Go hang yourself, you old M.D.!
You shall not sneer at me.
Pick up your hat and stethoscope,
Go wash your mouth with laundry soap;
I contemplate a joy exquisite
I'm not paying you for your visit.
I did not call you to be told
My malady is a common cold.

By pounding brow and swollen lip;
By fever's hot and scaly grip;
By those two red redundant eyes
That weep like woeful April skies;
By racking snuffle, snort, and sniff;
By handkerchief after handkerchief;
This cold you wave away as naught
Is the damnedest cold man ever caught!

Give ear, you scientific fossil!
Here is the genuine Cold Colossal;
The Cold of which researchers dream,
The Perfect Cold, the Cold Supreme.
This honored system humbly holds
The Super-cold to end all colds;
The Cold Crusading for Democracy;
The Führer of the Streptococcracy.

Bacilli swarm within my portals
Such as were ne'er conceived by mortals,
But bred by scientists wise and hoary
In some Olympic laboratory;
Bacteria as large as mice,
With feet of fire and heads of ice
Who never interrupt for slumber
Their stamping elephantine rumba.

A common cold, gadzooks, forsooth!
Ah, yes. And Lincoln was jostled by Booth;
Don Juan was a budding gallant,
And Shakespeare's plays show signs of talent;
The Arctic winter is fairly coolish,
And your diagnosis is fairly foolish.
Oh what a derision history holds
For the man who belittled the Cold of Colds!

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"

And paraphrasing the next line:

Or close the wall up with our American dead

To say nothing of the Korean, Chinese, Commonwealth and other dead! 

Probably to your immense relief there has been a slight pause in my reading of the second book(*) I possess on the subject of the Korean war.  The reason is simple, I couldn't face any more of it and I just knew it was going to get even worse!

In my last post on the subject I left you in the winter of 1950.  McArthur, unforgivably, had ignored the mass attack by tens of thousands of Chinese troops that had taken him completely by surprise and which, after five day's fighting, had melted away back into the mountains.  Again, no-one in Washington stopped him when he went back on the offensive intent on pushing an American army up to the Yalu river and the Chinese frontier.  With the remorseless and blindingly obvious result that the Chinese attacked again and this time there was to be no pause, they smashed into the allied armies and within a matter of weeks they had pushed them back south of Seoul.  Such blind stupidity and total military ineptness should have cost MacArthur his job there and then - but still Washington, fearful of public opinion, failed to act.

At this point we touch upon the very heart of democracy and find within it a deliciously rich vein of irony.  Democratic governments are supposed to listen to the voice of 'The People' despite the very obvious fact that 'The People' are usually frequently wrong.  Here we reach one of those double-handed situations where, on the one hand, it is right for politicians to listen to the The People, but on the other hand, politicians are supposed to have the courage to lead The People even against their instincts, and even if it results in their political demise at the next election.  I would suggest that when your own (conscripted) troops are dying in huge numbers the duty of leadership is paramount.  Truman, Acheson, Marshall and the Combined Chiefs of Staff all failed in their duty and stand accused of cowardice.

In 1951, the second year of the war, the field commander of the allied armies was killed in an accident and his place was taken by Gen. Ridgeway, a good fighting general but not necessarily a great student of grand strategy.  However, he did force MacArthur to place all the troops in Korea under his command and he began a fight back which, by the summer, took the allies back to more or less where they were when the North Koreans first began the war.  It was at this point that MacArthur finally overstepped the mark and Washington plucked up its collective courage and sacked him.  Because both sides were now more or less where they started Washington began to make peace moves.  MacArthur, in an attempt to scupper them issued a bulletin, insisting that the war was yet to be won; and then he went one step further by writing a letter to a Republican Congressman, in effect, attacking Truman's policy.  Well, politicians might not understand war but they usually understand politics and MacArthur, having crossed the political Rubicon, was finally sacked.

The peace talks ensued and there then followed nearly two years of such infantile stupidity and folly, mostly on the part of the Americans, as almost to defy description.  These peace talks could have been settled in weeks but instead they dragged on and on and tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians perished needlessly.

Regular readers will know of my deep regard for America.  I am aware of their weaknesses and mistakes in WWII, but if they suffered their Pearl Harbour, we suffered our Dunkirk, too.  At any rate, together (more or less) we learned our lessons and in a partnership (of sorts) we proceeded to overthrow two great powers and win the first global war.  I think it was a remarkable partnership and one which we should look back on with pride.  That, I fear, has been my undoing in considering American policy post-WWII.  I listened to the more realistic voices of the likes of Enoch Powell who warned many times that America was a blundering child in the complex world of global strategy, but whilst I acknowledged that mistakes were made from time to time I remained steadfast in my general support.  This study of the Korean war has not so much changed my mind as shattered it.  Now, with considerable dread, I must turn to the war in Vietnam which, in my unforgiveable idleness, I have never really studied.  If anyone can recommend a really good, detached history which covers the Washington/political end as well as the actual campaign, I would be grateful.

Oh dear, 72-years old and still learning!

(*)Korea: The Lost War by Bevin Alexander

Six degrees of stupefaction

I have grumbled many a time and oft' on the subject of what I call, sneeringly, 'Polyversities' and the nonsense they 'teach' as a means of leeching off the public purse (or my purse, as I fondly think of it).  A particularly fat, smug example of one of these leeches can be found in the person of Prof. Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire.  Sounds rather grand, don'cha think?  Until you learn, courtesy of Quentin Letts at The Daily Mail that it was formerly Luton College of Higher Education.  I bet when it was in its original form it provided a first-class service offering the sort of practical courses that young men and women, not given to academia, needed as skills they could take to the market place for jobs.  Today, under the money-grubbing tutelage of Prof. Ebdon it now offers:

two-year course in carnival arts, offering undergraduates the chance to ‘learn how to design and make carnival costumes and decorations’

degrees in beauty spa management

a course in ‘breastfeeding counselling’, a degree in football studies and a post-grad course in sport tourism management

Well, you and I might sneer but Prof. Ebdon is laughing all the way to the bank because according to The Mail he earns around £250k a year, er, that's from me and you, in case you've forgotten!  I only raise this sleazy subject because Quentin Letts informs us that this governmental bottom-feeder who swims effortlessly both in Westminster and Brussels waters is being punted for a top job as "university access supremo".  You may wonder exactly what that means so let me tell you that it means - £45k a year for working two days a week!  Will he take a drop in salary from his 'Polyversity'?  Who knows!  What we do know is that he is being pushed for this role by one of the silliest men in politics today (and that takes some beating), Vince Cable, but all is not lost because I gather that Gove and Cameron are fighting it.  I need hardly add that this maggot on the open sore of 'Polyversity' non-education is very much against University fees.  I bet he is!

 

'Arry: 7 (lucky for some!); Inland Revenue: nil (as usual!)

My title will be even more incomprehensible to my foreign readers than usual and I apologise.  This blog prides itself on its international flavour but occasionally parochial village-pump matters loom large.  For the benefit of the uninitiated, "'Arry" is Harry Redknapp, currently the manager of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, a 'right gor blimey' East Ender, beloved by the nation irrespective of whether or not they be 'footie' fans. 

Five years ago it was brought to the attention of our less-than-beloved tax authorities, Her Majesty's Inland Revenue and Customs (HMRIC), that our 'Arry 'ad (oooops, sorry, it's difficult to avoid using 'Arry's, I mean Harry's, estuary English) . . . our Harry had over a hundred grand in a bank account in Monaco, well, as you do!  Anyway, these pecksniffs and upstarts (and probable Arsenal fans, too!) from HMIRC reckoned 'Arry was trying to dodge paying his tax - I know, I know, such impudence!  Anyway, this case, which in actual lost tax terms was worth about £60k went on and on and on for five years costing, I guess, several million quid.  Eventually, it ended up in court and today, as anyone could have told them years ago, a jury cleared our 'Arry of all wrong doing.  Quite apart from the fact that our 'Arry is beyond all doubt a man of utmost honesty and rectitude, even if theoretically you caught him in broad daylight robbing his local newsagent, no jury in England would ever find him guilty of anything!  Everyone in England, with the exception of the brain-dead morons in HMIRC who probably play rugby, hence their brain damage, loves our 'Arry.

 

'Votez socialistes, mes amis!'

In a reply to my e-pal, AK, in the comments to the preceeding post I suggested that Mrs. Merkel had taken leave of her senses.  My remark was prompted by her mad and panicked decision to close down all of Germany's nuclear power stations - see below.  However, that was followed by an even more bizarre suggestion when she promised recently to campaign in France on behalf of the 'Hungarian dwarf'!  If you are not sure what to think of that quite extraordinary idea just ask yourself how you would feel if she comes over here in three years time and campaigns for 'Dim Dave'?  Yeeees, quite!

Needless to say, this lunatic idea has played right into the hands of the socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, who already has a very healthy lead in the polls.  I cannot believe that an intervention by a German Chancellor is going to do anything but sink what lingering hopes little Sarkozy might still have.  Also, needless to say, this has given the go-ahead to the leader of the German Socialists to offer support to their Bothers and Sisters in France.

Personally, I am all in favour of Merkel doing whatever she feels necessary to make a French socialist victory even more certain than it already is.  As Der Spiegel points out quoting from Right-wing newspaper Die Welt:

The Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, feels it is his calling to turn back the leftist clock to the 1970s and he is confusing the voters with all manner of campaign promises -- promises that are contrary to all economic reason.... Hollande's 60 Point Program is like a best-of list of left-wing populism. The French in the future are to be allowed once again to retire at age 60, taxes are to be raised broadly, the public sector enlarged, financial markets regulated and the banks broken apart. Given this retro-socialism, it isn't surprising at all that he wants to repeal the fiscal pact and introduce euro bonds -- and of course use the European Central Bank as a money-printing machine. Hollande's victory would be the end of Franco-German leadership in Europe. [My emphasis]

So not all bad news, then!  A radical socialist government in Paris turning the clock back 40 years and coming on top of the already trembling foundations of the euro should result in an almighty crash-bang-wallop.  Oh dear, what a pity, never mind!

Still, I am sure 'Dim Dave' and those shrewd young men in the FO with their Third Class degrees from Cleethorpes Polyversity are already planning several devious ways in which Britain can either take advantage, or prepare to jump ship.  Er, they are, aren't they?  Oh come on, of course they are ... I mean, they must be ... surely!

 

The tendency to think that all the idiots live in your own country is wrong!

And I offer Germany as a proof of my contention!  Their desperate, and not altogether discreditable, post-war efforts to be 'Good Germans' has allowed their nuttier fringe to lead them up several garden paths to disaster.  Not the least damaging of them is the way in which the 'Greenies' have rammed through alternative energy policies which are not only useless but also hideously expensive.  This mad tendency was capped last year when the 'Kaiserin', in a fit of panic after Fukushima ordered 8 of the 18 nuclear reactors to close immediately prior to the phasing out of the remainder.  The resulting energy slack would be taken up by renewable energy sources especially wind farms.  However, some quite disgraceful energy expert, Dr. Günter Keil, has carried out an investigation on behalf of  The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) - no, me neither - and has come to some rather startling conclusions.  Well, they're startling if you only possess three brain cells and lack an imagination!

According to this worthy, the German energy policy of the last 12 years is a disaster waiting to happen:

Years ago Germany ambitiously embarked on transforming its energy supply system, and hopes to supply at least 80% of its energy needs through renewable energies by 2050, and thus become a moral leader on environmental responsibility for the rest of the world.

To do this, the former Socialist-Green coalition government, led by Gerhard Schröder, enacted the so-called Renewable Energy Feed-In Act (EEG) in 2000. This Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years. This has led to a boom as thousands of homeowners, businesses, and investors have installed thousands of megawatts of solar and wind power capacity over the years. The current Conservative-Liberal government, not to be outdone by its predecessor, is also gleefully pushing the Feed-In Act to the limit.

Enough to warm the freezing heart of any 'Greenie' but there is a teensy-weensy problem:

The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe. The other problem: the power grid needed to distribute the decentrally produced green power is simply not there yet. They forgot to build it! [My emphasis] So far, after tens of billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient plants have been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.

And just to add to their woes:

Before the shutdown of the nuclear reactors, Germany had been a net power exporter; today it is a net power importer and is at times severely straining neighboring power grids. To compensate for the missing nuclear power, the government is now heavily promoting even more weather-dependent wind power, which is further destabilizing the German and European power grids. A solution to the problem of storing electricity is still at least a generation away.

Still, not to worry, eh?  Surely Convict 101's Mr. Huhne's windmills will do the trick over here, no problem.  Well, not according to this useful table provided by Richard North at EU Referendum, which indicates that on 'Freezing Monday' they supplied a less than magnificent 0.9% of the total power used:

Another excellent source for keeping tabs on the lunacy of windmills as an energy source is the indefatiguable Autonomous Mind who offers this table showing the contribution from wind sources last Sunday when the big freeze began:

Somewhat plaintively he asks:

Is there any more clear a demonstration of the folly of the government’s plans to spend billions of pounds adding more wind capacity, when it cannot come close to replacing the amount of energy generated by coal-fired and nuclear power plant that will be decommissioned?

What compounds this folly is that additional gas-fired power will have to be built just to act as back up for the wind power on days like this.  There is no economic sense to paying twice to install capacity, particularly given the extent of taxpayer subsidy being devoted to wind turbines to make them more ‘affordable’ – code for helping generators make money from them at our expense.

And one senses and sympathises with the note of desperation in his tone when he asks:

If this doesn’t convince those who favour wind of their nonsensical folly, what will?

 

Norman Geras on the oddity, not the banality, of evil

I haven't mentioned Norman Geras for some time.  It's partly my fault and partly his!  Mine because I am idle and his because he does not allow comments, and one of the things I like most about blogs and blogging are the conversations that can ensue.  Anyway, I 'popped in' today and was immediately taken by one of his posts.  Incidentally, for those unaquainted with Norman Geras he is a man possessed of Marxist leanings but any self-respecting Marxist tyranny - and when are they anything but - would have him shot on the spot!  Apart from that he is also a cricket nut, too!

Anyway, yesterday he was quoting an article by Howard Jacobsen in The Indepedent which posed an intriguing question put to him by a survivor of Buchenwald:

"In the mornings," he said, "in Buchenwald, when the guards lined us up to count us, to see how many had survived the night, and we stood there in the cold in just our shirts and bare feet, an orchestra played, a Jewish orchestra playing classical music. It had no effect on me. I was too numb to feel anything. Now, before I am able to sleep, I have to listen to classical music. No, it doesn't bring back memories of the music the orchestra played then. I listen to classical music now because it helps me to forget. They are not connected. But this is my question – why did the Germans order that music to be played?" [My emphasis]

Why, indeed?!  Was it, perhaps, an example of what we Brits call 'a Yerman yoke' to match the one over the entrance saying "Arbeit Macht Frei"?  One should never underestimate the German capacity for absurdist humour!  It cannot have been for the enjoyment of the Germans, after all, most of the guards would have preferred some 'oom-pah-pah' Berliner songs rather than Beethoven.  Nor, as the survivor testifies above, could anyone have imagined that it would affect the prisoners since it was obvious that they spent every waking hour wondering if they would ever experience the next waking hour!

So perhaps it was just an exquisite but meaningless act of extra cruelty.  Norman suggests strongly that no reason is needed because it simply derives from the innate cruelty which lies in human nature:

There is no limit to the inventiveness of the human capacity for cruelty, and in that sense evil is bottomless. This doesn't mean either that everyone will do evil or that humans are more evil than good. It only means that people's creative talents are boundless and when they apply themselves to cruelty no moral or other barrier will restrict them from horrors or from ghastly ingenuities.

From that, certain other dangers arise which are always and forever with us:

It is also why so many well-meaning sociologies and psychologies of extreme human wrong-doing miss a certain mark. Endeavouring to find preceding causes influencing individuals to behave badly - something one can always do because no human action comes out of a causal vacuum - they have a tendency then to downplay the gravity of the evil committed, as if it proceeded by an unbroken chain from its putative causes. But what the example Howard was given here shows is that such evils always 'exceed' their causes, real or supposed. As depressing as it is to have to acknowledge this, they reflect those human sources of all that is also admirable about our species - the freedom to choose and the fertility of the human imagination.

Spot on!  Good man that Norman Geras, all we have to do is knock that Marxism out of him - ve haf vays, you know!