DUFF & NONSENSE!

'Votez socialiste, mes amis!'

I had to write that title in French because I simply could not bring myself to use English.  Anyway, it is my advice to the French electorate in their coming election not to you lot out there.  I urged them to that action not because I have suddenly turned Left, or discovered my feminine side, or suddenly gone completely rather than half ga-ga, but because I read in Der Spiegel a confirmation of my earlier report that Merkel intends to campaign for the Hungarian dwarf.  However, this gross intrusion into French affairs has now gone even further because, apparently:

Chancellor Angela Merkel has agreed with other conservative European leaders to help President Nicolas Sarkozy in the French election campaign by spurning his Socialist challenger François Hollande.

The usual suspects are involved including Spain and Italy (You vant ze Euros? Ve haf veys of making zem available!)  However, I am ashamed to report that Britain, too, has agreed to shun the socialist candidate François Hollande.  In the not unlikely event that European electorates turn Left over the next few years (Germany is due an election next year) and a socialist Chancellor and a socialist President stick their oars into our general election, how will 'Dim Dave' like 'them apples'?!

Quite apart from the impropriety of interfering in French affairs, Hollande seems determined to rock the European boat.  Even if he only tries half the things he has in mind it will cause huge ructions and with a bit of luck and a following wind it will cut down the power of the Brussels apparatchiks.  In other words, more or less exactly what Britain wants and needs.  And 'Dim Dave' opposes it.  No wonder Hilton did a runner!

The slough of despond at No. 10 Downing Street

An interesting piece at The Coffee House yesterday by James Forsyth on the background to Steve Hilton's departure.  It is timed at 4.15 pm and that made me wonder where and with whom he had lunched!  The piece is headed:

Hilton's return hinges on Cameron's radicalism

I just hope he doesn't hold his breath whilst he enjoys his sojourn in California!  According to Forsyth, Hilton will remain a part of the PM's personal team albeit at a distance.  He is already scheduled to work on Cameron's conference speech.  From that, I assume, he probably worked on previous conference speeches which seems like a complete waste of oxygen because I cannot for the life of me remember a single word or phrase that Cameron has ever uttered.  Unlike a certain lady predecessor!

Hilton has stressed to friends that his departure was motivated enormously by family pressures, however:

This is not to say that Hilton is not frustrated. But he long ago accepted that being frustrated was part of his job as he tried to drive change through a government machine that has the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Rolls Royce.

Poor diddums, one wonders how on earth that woman managed so well.  Forsyth reckons that Hilton will probably return even more radicalised(?) than ever but judging by the headline to his report a lot will depend on whether or not Cameron will pluck up the courage to come out of the il-Lib-non-Dem closet and declare himself to be a Thatcherite after all.  My advice (eagerly sought worldwide but never paid for) to Mr. Hilton is that he might as well take out American citizenship - 'cos it ain't gonna happen!

 

Keeping you bang up to date as usual!

It's not like me to boast, as you well know, but I do pride myself on bringing you all the very latest news as it happens, er, well, more or less as it happens.  Today I can proudly boast that this Blog has been rated No.58 out of a hundred on a poll of Blogs.

That's the good news, the even better news is that it was a poll on "The 100 Worst UK Politics Blogs" organised by some member of the Trot-lot brigade hiding behind the title of "A Very Public Sociologist".  I vaguely remember him back in the days when I used to collect 'prohibition orders' by the dozen from Left-wing Gauleiters who never stopped prating about freedom but whose sense of irony was obviously dead from the arse both ways.  The only interesting thing about the Trot-lot bloggers is that, by and large, and with the exception of mouth-foamers like the owner of Lenin's Tomb who could Bore for Britain at the Olympics, once they have spewed forth their standardised agit-prop they simply run out of things to say.  Thus, the 'Very Public Sociologist' ran out of puff last August but after resting what passes for his brain for several months he felt impelled to come back for one final ejaculation.  So what, you demand to know (er, you do, don't you?) did this fine Left-wing intellectual product of Cleethorpes Polyversity wish to tell us by way of his final message to The People (it's always capitalised in Left-wing circles)?  Here it is and do try and contain yourselves:

Top 10 Dance Tunes of 2011

I should add that this poll of which, hitherto, I had been blissfully unaware (or I would have bragged about it already) took place in the Summer of 2010.  The only reason I found out about it was because some unknown must have stumbled upon it and in perusing the list of worst political blogs saw the name of this blog at No. 58 and instantly sensing real quality clicked on it and thus left the trace in my visitors' log.  Such felicity for him or her and such deserved fame for me!

 

What are they putting in the cafe latte at The Coffee House?

I rarely take anyone's word on anything completely on faith but I confess that in my lazy way I do rather lean on the contributors to The Spectator, the sole proprietor of The Coffee House, for informed opinion on current events in the 'Westminster village'.  However, their reaction to the departure of the middle-aged, juvenile yob, Mr. 'Steve' Hilton, from his job as 'Dave's political guru has shaken my faith.

Quite apart from anything else, were I prime minister and my principal advisor turned up looking like a cycle delivery man I would fire him on the spot!

In fact it might be worse than that because I have a keen suspicion that actually he is an escapee from East Enders!

Except that Phil Mitchell dresses better!

However, that is beside the point.  What worries me is the impression I gain from the Coffee House scribblers that some how this man and his ideas will be sorely missed!  Apparently, he it was who invented 'Dave's favourite (non) idea - The Big Society.  As 'Paxo' would say, er, yeeeeees, quite!  I have no idea what it means, I'm absolutely certain 'Dave' doesn't either but the big question is, does 'Steve'?  We'll never know now because he's off to 'La-La-Land' and bloody good riddance, I reckon.

Even so, the scribblers insist that there is a real danger - and please don't giggle and snort at this in your usual ignorant manner - that the government might be less conservative after 'Steve's departure - look, I told you, no laughing!  With only one exception, education, I have yet to see this collection of il-Lib-non-Dem-non-Tory puppets and muppets carry out a single conservative idea.  And I would remind you all that the changes to the education system were actually started under that well-known member of the Conservative party, Tony Blair!

 

They seek 'em here, they seek 'em there . . .

. . . they seek those damn neutrinos everywhere! 

Do you remember those pesky little neutrinos who had the infernal cheek to, as it were, stick two fingers up to 'our Albert' and go ever so slightly faster than the speed of light?  Well, you can say what you like about the 'swots' but they do have an excellent sense of humour, even if it is somewhat unintentional.  The particular 'swots' concerned spend all their time buried under a Swiss mountain chasing neutrinos - I know, I know, what a way to spend a life! - and when the little critters went faster than light it caused an emotional breakdown amongst the team.  First, there was elation that they had, in the proper Popperian manner, falsified a theory; quickly followed by trembling anticipation of the bucket-loads of offal likely to be deposited on their heads when it was found that the Swiss cuckoo clock they used for timing was one 'koo slower than it should be and therefore gave a false reading!

Consequently, a suitably Swiss-like announcement of total neutrality was issued merely reporting 'the facts, Ma'am, nothing but the facts' and promising that rigorous checks would be made on the cuckoo clock and all the other equipment.  The result, announced a few days ago and reported by Reuters, was so deliciously quantum physics-like as to be hilarious and indeed some people swear they heard the ghostly laughter of that great prankster and humourist (as well as Nobel Prize winner) Richard Feynman.  You see:

The scientists at the Gran Sasso laboratory said tests on the equipment used in their experiment had led to two question marks over its sensational results, because of problems with possibly faulty cabling and separately with a timing mechanism.

The first "could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos" while the second could have resulted in "an overestimate," said the statement by the Italian laboratory's OPERA group of neutrino specialists, relayed by the CERN particle physics research centre in Geneva.

The latest turn in the story, which set the scientific world in uproar when it first broke last September, left the basic question - did they or didn't they? - unanswered, with more tests set for the coming weeks and months.

My apologies to Reuters but they are wrong.  The basic question has been answered, and indeed, it has been answered in perfect conformity with what I understand to be the very essense of quantum theory, that is, the naughty neutrinos went faster than light and slower than light - simultaneously!  See?  It's simple, really!

And if that convinces you that I'm as daft a brush let me quote Feynman:

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

As for 'our Albert', in anticipation he recorded his response years ago:

 

Who the hell cured the sun's acne?

Someone is to blame!  Normally ( a relative term, I know) 'the sun has got his hat on' -mostly to hide the fact that his face is covered in spots.  I gather that amongst the swots there is some disagreement as to the exact effects here on earth of these fairly regular outbreaks of acne.  But I have no doubts whatsoever!  Our sun is so enormous compared to the mere speck that earth represents in comparison that if it so much as coughs, we're history!

 

Now here is another similar chart showing sunspot activity but over a longer period and I would like you to pay particular attention to the early years of the 19th century:

 

And here are a few quotes from The History of British Winters:

1811: A late start for severe winters in the 1800s, but January of 1811 saw the Thames freeze, once again!

1813-1814: [...]  One of the 4/5 coldest winters in the CET series. [...]  A frost fair was held on the Thames, possibly the last 'great' one. The frost began in late December, approaching the new year. [...]

1816: Known as the year without summer, snow fell very late on, and the summer never recovered. [...]

1819-20: Severe winter. -23c was recorded at Tunbridge Wells [...]

1821: Late May saw snow in London, probably the latest snowfall there until 2nd June 1975.

1822-23: Severe winter, ice on the Thames by late December. February 8th saw a great snowstorm in Northern England. People had to tunnel through the snow.

I have said it before and I will say it again - go long on Long Johns!

I am obliged to Anthony Watts - again!



Andrew Breitbart R.I.P.

It is a shocking thing when anyone dies, suddenly, at the age of 43 but Andrew Breitbart's death will be heightened because an essential and superb journalistic gadfly has now left the scene.  He was, in a way, a creation of this internet age along with the likes of Matt Drudge with whom he worked.  I have his Big Government site bookmarked and it was amongst the first sites I would read every morning.  In just a few words 'The Kraut' sums up Breitbart's virtues and leaves us wondering who there is to take his place.  Perhaps his greatest unwritten epitaph is that American socialists from the White House down will be privately celebrating.

I suggest that we abort Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva with immediate effect!

I am obliged to 'SoD' (Son of Duff) for sending me the link to this Telegraph story which reports that the two brain-damaged (that's my description not theirs) mouth-breathers in my title call themselves 'medical ethicists'.  Before I contemplate an action under the Trades Descriptions Act, I had better tell you what this pair of latter-day moralists have to say.  In essence, they ask, why should babies who have actually been born be disqualified from abortion?  Being a man of generous, not to say, kindly disposition my first thought was that they were using an argument which philosophers describe as reductio ad absurdum. 

In the never-ending dispute over abortion it is an extreme example of an argument I have used myself in the past which goes something like this: at what point, exactly and precisely, does a bundle of self-reproducing cells change from being inhuman to being human?  I ask because, of course, that would decide whether an action to kill the cells was a moral abortion or a murder.  I have yet to hear from anyone, expert or not, who can tell me the precise point at which the change occurs.  Given that uncertainty, I have always maintained that abortion (except in a very small number of specific situations) should not be permitted.

So, in my innocence, I assumed that these two 'medical ethicists' were making my point (in extreme form) that unless you can point to some measurable factor upon which we can all agree that it demonstrates humanity, then the mere fact that a foetus has been expelled from a womb does not necessarily make it human.  Silly naive chap that I am, of course, this pair meant nothing of the sort.  They were being absolutely serious and published their views in a comic calling itself The Journal of Medical Ethics:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

There you go, just drop it on its head, that should do it!

"Oh, brave, new world".  Someone pass me a sick-bag.

 

Matt Ridley puts his money where his mouth is!

As most of you know, Matt Ridley is a distinguished and aristocratic academic, a convinced but practical libertarian and a decided sceptic on AGW.  Any one of those, of course, makes him 'an enemy of the people' to the likes of little Georgie 'Moonbat' at The Guardian but all three together place him quite beyond the pale!  However, I always try to judge a man by what he does rather than what he says and judging by a report at The Coffee House, Matt Ridley is a very pukka chap!  Being the son of a viscount, naturally he has a family trust (wish I had one!) which owns land some of which is rented out.  Ridley was dismayed to learn that some of this land, which earned his trust £8,500 a year, was going to be used for wind turbine machines, a scam an industry which Ridley has castigated in the past.  Unable to stop the activity, he has volunteered £8,500 as an annual prize for the best essay exposing 'Greenie' twaddle.  That's what I call putting your money where your mouth is.  Well done, sir, you're a gentleman and a scholar!