Better watch out, JK's back in town: Welcome back, JK, we've missed you, as indeed have sundry widows and divorcees in 'Arkieland', to say nothing of Barney Magroo ("Purveyor of Fine Wines to the Gentry") whose takings have sagged in your absence!
Is it just me? Or do others find rugby as eye-stabbingly tedious as I do? I was forced to watch two of the matches played yesterday because the 'Memsahib' has what I can only describe as an unhealthy fascination with all those huge men with thighs like tree-trunks - can't think why. God, it was boring! I seem to have vague memories of rugby matches from the past when it was played by men who looked normal and which were regularly lit up by lightning fast runs by slim, athletic-looking men with great dexterity and athleticism. Today it is all one great, boring slug-fest!
A terrific read: I made mention of this book the other day when I told you all of my spending spree at Amazon made possible by SoD's generous Xmas gift token. Airborne by Robert Radcliffe is a real 'Boys Own' yarn set in WWII but it has an added ingredient in the character of the main hero who is part-English but raised in South Tyrol, a peculiar little area with a history all of its own, that exists between northern Italy and Austria. Mr. Radcliffe has obviously researched his stuff and it adds a fascinating richness to his tale. Our hero ends up - read the book to find out how! - with the very first volunteers who formed the nucleus of British airborne forces and who had to learn the hard way the then very 'Billy basics' techniques of parachuting at the beginning of the war. Mr. Radcliffe very cleverly weaves his story in and out of real events featuring real people, like, Anthony Deane-Drummond, an archetypal WWII hero I remember reading about and admiring as a youngster. (Read his Wiki entry and you will see why!) I am still only part way into this story but 'I'm luvin' it already'!
A bribe by any other name is still a 'bung': Just ask any of those snooty Lords who will be voting shortly on Brexit whilst they 'trouser' their generous European Commission (EC) pensions. According to Matt Ridley in The Spectator - where else? - their Lordships are required to declare any interests they receive on any particular topic if they are partaking in a debate or voting on the subject, er, with one exception. If they are in receipt of an EC pension which obliges them always to support EC activities then they are excused from telling the rest of us plebs!
Bit of a 'boo-boo' there, Donald! It's all very well doing that 'iconoclast thang, Donald' but you do need to get the details right otherwise you will look like a 'komical klutz'! You are, of course, fully entitled to refuse entry to anyone you don't want in America but those pesky legal niceties have to be squared away first, particularly as you have the vast majority of American lawyers and judges against you. Only 'E' for Effort on that one, I'm afraid!
And now 'Mummy' scolds Donald: I refer, of course, to Ms. Janet Daley to whom I have extended my generous offer for her to bear my babies, an offer to which I am still awaiting a reply! Anyway, in today's Telegraph she scolds Donald severely for his mishandling of the entry/visa decision which, in essence, she sums up as an act of stupidity, if not malice, which will have to be repented at leisure. Or in other words, "He's a very naughty boy!"
OK, perhaps I was wrong: My e-pal, Bob, suggested I should try watching the American Superbowl tonight. I demurred on the grounds that one-move-a-day chess would be more exciting but then that "very naughty boy", Woodsterman, tempted me with this:
I'm not too sure what part these very fine, young gels actually play in the game but, in a very real and profound sense, do I care? Also. 'Woodsterman' had this political jibe on his site which is, of course, in the worst possible taste, er, as the dog concerned will affirm:
Oh no, Good News, say it ain't so! My final rumble today is aimed mainly at my American friends. Written by Kevin D. Williamson, it comes from The National Review and, amazingly, it will cheer you all up - promise! I confess that this blog is often guilty of crying, "Woe is me" - sorry, sorry! - but this article will put a smile of contentment back on your faces. Go read it, even if you live in Chicago, in fact, especially if you live in Chicago, it will do you good!
No more rumbles today
Duffers you are thinking of Rugby Union [the thugs game for gentlemen] as opposed to Rugby League [the thugs game for thugs]. ....and I have the odd scar to prove it. Because I was not very good and not fast enough to outrun the buggers trying to catch me.
Union is the game played in heaven in between cricket matches.
Posted by: AussieD | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 10:55
Notice MDJ's article (My Darling Janet) hasn't featured in the Rumble ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/04/britain-cant-afford-seen-trumps-side-defending-indefensible/
First splitter in the ranks of the new right order?! "Move along, nothing to see here", is it?!
Even when she splits from the alt-right alignment, she doesn't get it right. She says the world will view the West dimly for having served up Trump. Ordinary Muslims will wonder if the values of the West they agreed with were but a mirage, we are told.
Quite the opposite.
The world and ordinary Muslins will see that country-bumpkins, like themselves, are indeed perfectly capable of serving up a Trump, but, better men and women who went before them in the West put in place constitutions and rule of law to diminish the Trump when he or she appears - we, and they, have witnessed the constitutions of the West defeat and restrain Trumpish leadership in both the block on Trump's Muslim ban, and the parliamentary inspection to be applied to Brexit.
The world and ordinary Muslims will reflect with even more wonderment on these great constitutions and defenders of their ideals and values: The slayer of Trump and the tamer of Brexit.
Nothing else could have renewed the world and ordinary Muslim's faith in the West than witnessing the West restrain its own monsters.
Their fight against their own monsters can proceed knowing, not just believing, that they are right, and there is hope in the form of a demonstrable reality in their aspirations to live free of terror.
SoD
Posted by: Loz | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 12:35
"Trump's Muslim ban". There is no Muslim ban. Spin the lie long enough until it becomes fact. The "alt-Left" are the ones claiming it exists. It is the foolish Western Left who seek admittance of incompatible peoples into their respective countries to strengthen the domestic leftists by diluting the numbers of the host country who want to maintain their heritage and social order. This is the right of every nation to maintain. But now, because it has been ignored for so long, people are waking up to the threat and methods employed by naive people who seek to commit national suicide. Islam is not compatible with liberal Western values. Some Muslims can do so as individuals...they are apostates to the religion and eventually will be called to Sharia when enough Islam takes root in the host country. The West and Islam have been at war for fourteen hundred years in one way or another. This modern version of the war is just another way. Aided and abetted by the foolish Western Left.
Posted by: Whitewall | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 13:18
"Rules for Radicals"...make your enemy live up to his own book of rules. Throw the Constitution at them, throw their law at them, hell, if needed which it often is, throw their New Testament Bible at them. The Radicals advance by the chaos. The normal orderly society crumbles.
Posted by: Whitewall | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 13:24
David, perhaps you and the 'Memsahib' will watch our grand finale of American football today. Admittedly the linemen aren't graceful, but most other players are. I trust you'll approve of the lightning fast runs by muscular, slim men with great dexterity and athleticism. They'll be wearing tights, just like many Shakespearean actors, though the codpiece is worn below.
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 15:35
Sorry, Bob, no way! I know most games are start/stop but in your game the 'stops' far outnumber and outlast the 'starts'! Mind you, I confess to a miniscule knowledge of the game.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 16:32
I agree, David. The only way to watch football lately is start the DVR and begin watching about 45 minutes late to allow fast-forwarding through the time outs and commercials.
--
SoD, your take is encouraging. It's not clear Trump didn't know the order was illegal. He thrives on chaos. It's not obvious how that will work out for him or the country, but it's quite a show.
Trump appears to take many of his cues from Steve Bannon, who has a weirdly apocalyptic view of the world (there are a lot of interesting links here):
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-security-council-steve-bannon-new-barbarity-2017-1
The rightist idea that blowing up the world will necessarily have it reassemble into something they like better is bizarrely naive. Whacking the hornet's nest in Iraq certainly had questionable results.
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 17:19
Here's another one: Listen to this smug, chinless, spacker: -
"General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, has called on the Government to 're-bench' the armed forces."
"He said: 'You are dealing with a legacy of iterative hollowing out, which has reached a point where the frog has boiled.'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/05/british-warships-noisy-russian-submarines-can-hear-100-miles/
And everything you need to know about where the frog-boiling, re-benching lingo comes from you get from this Wiki factoid:-
"Barrons co-authored a book, The Business General, published by Vermilion, with Deborah Tom in 2006"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Barrons
Great business you've done general.
You knew the budgets. You spent the money. And now we have: -
- Most of our modern warships in dock, conked out by design faults.
- Those hulks of 1 billion quid's worth of stealth that manage to limp out for a brief foray into the ocean can be heard 100 miles away because they "rattle like a box of spanners".
- Fewer Main Battle Tanks than Switzerland.
- Main Battle Tanks with a gun that no-one makes the ammo for anymore.
- Spy drones ordered in 2005 that still aren't ready for action.
- Carriers (still not ready for action) with no planes, and at risk of never having planes if the Don cancels F-35.
- Two wars that were arguably lost or drawn, in which British Armed forces routinely needed unplanned help from allies.
And what is your answer to this?
Simply give us more money - in spite of the fact that Britain funds its military more fully than most of its western counterparts.
No attempt to apportion blame where blame is due: To poor decision making, poor leadership, poor professionalism, poor project management, much of it probably his own.
But very happy to pocket £175k per annum, retire in his fifties and be called "Sir".
Barrons, here's you in another role: -
A friend of mine's wife has liver cancer. After a heart-breaking run-around by the NHS, she finally got to her operation to try to hobble its progress. In theatre, the staff described the procedure and she realized it wasn't what the consultant had proscribed. "Well you're here, and that's what we're doing", came the answer. Exhausted and distressed, she said "Get on with it then".
When she and her husband went for the post-operation appointment with the consultant they asked why the procedure had been changed. "I don't know", came the consultant's answer. "Well, this is a problem," they replied, "We're not happy, we were terrified they were doing the wrong thing."
"No", replied the consultant, standing, puce with anger, waving his finger at them, "You are the problem! You are the problem because you won't pay, you won't pay to properly fund the service!".
Another piece of human filth on £175k per annum with letters after his name. From the same mould as you, Barrons.
Two final things I can tell you with certainty, Barrons: -
(1) If you'd ever worked in business in a truly competitive market, not a rigged-up corporate monopoly or cartel, you'd have got nowhere.
(2) I'm glad I never served anywhere near you. I'd have fragged you at the first opportunity.
SoD
Posted by: Loz | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 17:21
" ... but those pesky legal niceties have to be squared away first ... "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 17:55
Oh God, JK, I keep telling you, I'm sleeping perfectly well, thank you, without you sending me the US legal code in all its boring-snoring detail!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 18:37
David, after viewing the photo of those young ladies, I sense you needed a nap? I did.
Posted by: Whitewall | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 20:05
Well, yes, Whiters, that's the thing with all these, er, sporting activities, it's absolutely knackering!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 20:27
Right. As long as you know what neighborhoods to avoid in Chicago it's still the "second city" only to New York. LA has more people, but it's nothing but a lot of jammed highways.
It's odd that the National Review has chosen now to assure everyone that everything's just fine. The Germans are even alarmed:
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 21:36
One would think the Germans, of all peoples, would recognize that with copper and wrought iron a straight-edged blade would be precisely the wrong choice.
"Artistic License" I suppose ...
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 05 February 2017 at 23:22
Bob you were citing NOAA not long ago as a reliable source of information on climate.
Start with this and dig deeper into the actual sources. As soon as you start "cooking the books" your credibility is shot.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/climategate-2-heating-data-exaggerated-by-noaa/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54
Posted by: AussieD | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 00:20
AussieD,
Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't personally vouch for NOAA, but it does include some of the expert climatologists studying global temperature change. The idea that they cooked the books for some nefarious purpose is silly. Scientists make mistakes, but apparently peer review held NOAA accountable. That's how science works. If you look at both the red and blue lines on the chart you'll notice both indicate a warming trend. What was at issue was measurement and statistical methods, not that warming is a hoax.
If you look at all recent pieces by Andrew Bolt you'll notice he has definite points of view. Some are hilarious:
"Teacher's anti-white rant: 'We need to start killing people'"
"The Left has become the fascists they denounce ..."
"How the Left hates"
"Jihadists make fools of Trump critics"
"Fascists against free speech now run riot at American universities."
Fair and balanced? You decide.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 16:39
Bob, I don't think anyone doubts that global temps have risen recently not least because the bloody things go up and down since earth time began! There are two main problems with the likes of your NOAA and our Met Office. First, is their resolute insistence on concentrating on land measurements rather than satellite ones even when it is blindingly obvious that earth ones are subject to, er, 'interpretation'; secondly, their obvious (and highly stupid) insistence that the increase is man-made. For example, for years they have claimed that CO2 was a prime cause but CO2 production mainly from the Far East has increased enormously but temps have not followed suit!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 18:20
David, you'll have to pardon me if I trust the scientific method more than opinion writers. As my sweet old Aunt Emma used to say, "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they all stink."
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 19:50
Well, Bob, using your scientific method can you please explain to me why certain scientists insist that CO2 is a 'warmer' and yet temps have not risen much despite several squillion tons more of the stuff being pumped out each year?
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 22:13
And, Bob, another of those creepy coincidence-thingies, over at The American Thinker I just read:
"John Bates, former principal scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab at the National Climatic Data Center, is accusing the agency of cooking the books to disprove the theory that there has been a "pause" in global warming and alleging that the motive for manipulating the data was to buttress the Obama administration's EPA carbon rules and build support for the Paris Climate Treaty."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/government_whistle_blower_accuses_noaa_of_manipulating_climate_data_.html#ixzz4XwkNYsFH
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 22:25
David,
"temps have not risen much despite several squillion tons more of the stuff being pumped out each year"
Ignoring the imaginary measurement that's just factually incorrect, and The American Thinker has no credibility in matters of science. It's a right wing fan 'zine.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 06 February 2017 at 23:26