Thursday, December 16, 2004
KYOTO CARRY ON.........
I really hate to broach this subject since it is off topic, but I do so in the vain hope that it will silence those who recite the global warning mantra:
(From the Denver Post)
Michael Malin, president of Malin Space Science Systems, talked about gullies that may have been sculpted recently by liquid water; evidence of ancient seas; and the discovery that the planet’s south polar cap of dry ice is losing weight.
“Mars is experiencing global warming,” Malin said. “And we don’t know why."
I guess those Martians elected a Republican government and drive SUV’s.
Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:48 AM (Link to this comment)
I don’t have now the time to answer to all of u but yes there are policemen in France, but it doesn’t change anything. Hussein submitted himself to the UN tests, but US government affected not to hear and see this, cause they already got their war plan, and they shown us false clues like picture of Cheney’s garden taken with a bad camera, who could look like a WMD storehouse (wel I’m joking but the picture of a truck an’t tell u what’s inside of it). Hans Blx and his guys visited all Iraq and didn’t find any WMD. But Bush was annoyed by this and steel affected not to hear what the reports said. If UN were created, it was to prevent war, and the nations had al to say ok if a war had to be done. So US had not to go to war without the aproval of UN. So you can say this war was illegal. Even if Hussein was a criminal and had to be overthrown. And even if he was a criminal, your country didn’t respect the Geneva’s convention when he as arrested. You were scandalised when an american prisoner was shown on TV, but didn’t care when it was an iraqi one, but the convention says you don’t have the right to show any picture of any prisoner in the media. If UN have no credibility, why did you create them so? And proove me then why you would be more credible than them.
I don’t mean to change the topic, but you said yourself how can you negociate with some conqueror with dreams of world domination? Is it the reason which make you follow your president blindly and don’t dare to tell him when he’s wrong.
I don’t know the one who said terrorists had middleclass roots. I think you’re wrong. Terrorist’s CHIEFS are middleclass or millionnaire, but the suicide bombers or plane hijacker are mostly underdogs. That’s because of their poverty that Al Qaida and co can recruit them, because they don’ have any hope in future because they’ve been starving for years and think it’ll go on and on with Karl Rov… er George Bush and co’s policies. As u do, they believe in the ones who have money. Of course Saudi Arabia is quite rich, and of course the money comes from here, and of course too, you don’t attack them because they got money and oil. But suicide bombers ain’t oilwell’s owners.
Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:55 AM (Link to this comment)
And about Kyoto, of course the treaty isn’t perfect, but Bush’s argument are wrong. He says it’s not enough, but what is he doing? Does he show a real environment policy? No, he’s not doing anything, and he’s even doing more pollution than ever. Do you realise that if each people on earth lived like a middle american, we would need 23 earths to stock your pollution and wastes? And I’m not ommparing to other countries because most countries would need more than one earth. But others would need no more than about 10. It’s big, but it’s not 23.
(From the Denver Post)
Michael Malin, president of Malin Space Science Systems, talked about gullies that may have been sculpted recently by liquid water; evidence of ancient seas; and the discovery that the planet’s south polar cap of dry ice is losing weight.
“Mars is experiencing global warming,” Malin said. “And we don’t know why."
I guess those Martians elected a Republican government and drive SUV’s.
Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:48 AM (Link to this comment)
I don’t have now the time to answer to all of u but yes there are policemen in France, but it doesn’t change anything. Hussein submitted himself to the UN tests, but US government affected not to hear and see this, cause they already got their war plan, and they shown us false clues like picture of Cheney’s garden taken with a bad camera, who could look like a WMD storehouse (wel I’m joking but the picture of a truck an’t tell u what’s inside of it). Hans Blx and his guys visited all Iraq and didn’t find any WMD. But Bush was annoyed by this and steel affected not to hear what the reports said. If UN were created, it was to prevent war, and the nations had al to say ok if a war had to be done. So US had not to go to war without the aproval of UN. So you can say this war was illegal. Even if Hussein was a criminal and had to be overthrown. And even if he was a criminal, your country didn’t respect the Geneva’s convention when he as arrested. You were scandalised when an american prisoner was shown on TV, but didn’t care when it was an iraqi one, but the convention says you don’t have the right to show any picture of any prisoner in the media. If UN have no credibility, why did you create them so? And proove me then why you would be more credible than them.
I don’t mean to change the topic, but you said yourself how can you negociate with some conqueror with dreams of world domination? Is it the reason which make you follow your president blindly and don’t dare to tell him when he’s wrong.
I don’t know the one who said terrorists had middleclass roots. I think you’re wrong. Terrorist’s CHIEFS are middleclass or millionnaire, but the suicide bombers or plane hijacker are mostly underdogs. That’s because of their poverty that Al Qaida and co can recruit them, because they don’ have any hope in future because they’ve been starving for years and think it’ll go on and on with Karl Rov… er George Bush and co’s policies. As u do, they believe in the ones who have money. Of course Saudi Arabia is quite rich, and of course the money comes from here, and of course too, you don’t attack them because they got money and oil. But suicide bombers ain’t oilwell’s owners.
Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:55 AM (Link to this comment)
And about Kyoto, of course the treaty isn’t perfect, but Bush’s argument are wrong. He says it’s not enough, but what is he doing? Does he show a real environment policy? No, he’s not doing anything, and he’s even doing more pollution than ever. Do you realise that if each people on earth lived like a middle american, we would need 23 earths to stock your pollution and wastes? And I’m not ommparing to other countries because most countries would need more than one earth. But others would need no more than about 10. It’s big, but it’s not 23.
Blunkett quits after banging a married lady and allegedly sorting her out with a quickie visa
DAVID BLUNKETT resigned last night after an inquiry found his office was involved in "fast-tracking" his ex-lover Kimberly Quinn's nanny's application to stay in Britain.Whitehall mandarin Sir Alan Budd discovered there had been a fax and an e-mail through Mr Blunkett's office discussing the case and the Home Secretary told Prime Minister Tony Blair he would resign immediately.Mr Blunkett insisted he had no recollection of dealing with the case but added he would not hide behind civil servants and accepted full responsibility.He said a memo had been sent from his office which said "no favours, but slightly quicker".Mr Blunkett said he had "misunderstood" the relationship he had with Mrs Quinn.Referring to Mrs Quinn's young child, whom he believes is his, he said: "I misunderstood what we had. I misunderstood that someone could do this, not just to me, but to a little one as well."The anguish of the weeks I have just had, and they have been the worst of my life, and the disappointment and sometimes I think probably the depression of the months to come are absolutely nothing compared to the joy of, in the future, being able to grow and work alongside - along with my elder sons - that little lad."The Home Secretary's resignation was inevitable after Cabinet colleagues and Labour backbenchers made clear they were withdrawing their support.Colleagues said his bitter paternity battle with Mrs Quinn over her son had become an embarrassment to them and the government, no matter how strongly they might sympathise personally with the Home Secretary in his troubles. It was the granting of Indefinite Leave to Remain to nanny Leoncia Casalme which provided the trigger for Mr Blunkett's decision to quit.At first the Home Office insisted Mr Blunkett had done nothing more than check her application for factual errors. Then it emerged she had been told it might take a year - but 19 days later it was granted.Recollection
"The key issue has always been whether I used my public office for private benefit," he said in a statement. "Since these issues were first raised, I have always given my honest recollection of the facts, on the record as I remembered them."Mr Blunkett said he had been "overwhelmed" by the support of "the Prime Minister, my sons, my family, people who have never known me who have been in touch."I owe it to them that I am honest and open and that I get out of the situation I'm in and I rebuild," he said.The MP said he had come to a second "realisation" three months ago."If I was ever going to see my youngest son again, if I was ever going to hold him as I did as a baby in my arms, there were going to be consequences."I hadn't fully grasped the enormity of those consequences."But in time people will understand what I have been through, what I am prepared to go through, what I was prepared to sacrifice along with my three elder sons for that little boy."Asked if he could return to the Cabinet Mr Blunkett said: "It is entirely dependent on what I have done, how I have handled myself."I believe in making a difference to people's lives. And in the 30-odd years that I have been in formal politics I think I have contributed along with colleagues to changing the world."Tony Blair replied to Mr Blunkett's resignation saying: "You leave government with your integrity intact."
"The key issue has always been whether I used my public office for private benefit," he said in a statement. "Since these issues were first raised, I have always given my honest recollection of the facts, on the record as I remembered them."Mr Blunkett said he had been "overwhelmed" by the support of "the Prime Minister, my sons, my family, people who have never known me who have been in touch."I owe it to them that I am honest and open and that I get out of the situation I'm in and I rebuild," he said.The MP said he had come to a second "realisation" three months ago."If I was ever going to see my youngest son again, if I was ever going to hold him as I did as a baby in my arms, there were going to be consequences."I hadn't fully grasped the enormity of those consequences."But in time people will understand what I have been through, what I am prepared to go through, what I was prepared to sacrifice along with my three elder sons for that little boy."Asked if he could return to the Cabinet Mr Blunkett said: "It is entirely dependent on what I have done, how I have handled myself."I believe in making a difference to people's lives. And in the 30-odd years that I have been in formal politics I think I have contributed along with colleagues to changing the world."Tony Blair replied to Mr Blunkett's resignation saying: "You leave government with your integrity intact."
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
No opposition on the ID card debate
INteresting newsnight debate last night. It seems that the Tories are going to support Blairs ID card idea because they don't want to be seen as soft on terror this close to the election. There were several unnamed sources who were either going to be missing in the vote on friday, or were going to 'vote holding their nose'. Howard has come out for the cards, and the party (for the moment) is going to stick with him.
Jack Straw, Mr Blunkett's predecessor as home secretary, first floated the idea of a "citizen's access card" shortly after Labour came to power in 1997. The idea was quietly shelved, until the home affairs select committee last year backed the idea of an "entitlement card" as a measure towards checking immigration flows - but also valid for library lending, NHS treatment and benefits claims.
Although that card was intended to voluntary, the home secretary accepted it would be hard to prevent an entitlement access card becoming mandatory. Additionally, there would be the cost of hi-tech security devices, such as machine-verifiable photographs, fingerprints or even iris recognition.
The card would also require the sharing of personal information data across Whitehall departments and local authorities, which, although the prime minister expressed his favour of it, again generated concerns from civil liberty groups. And, more importantly, it raised the possibility of expensive legal actions against the home office if the trillions of pieces of information held on individuals were incorrect, not updated or missing.
After the September 11 attacks, one of Mr Blunkett's first actions was to put forward the idea of an ID card again, despite warnings that organised terrorists were unlikely to deterred by the prospect of forging a piece of plastic.
Although the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation - essentially the unions of low-ranking officers - have expressed support for the scheme, more senior police have acknowledged the scope for greater social and racial conflict that the cards could spark. Mr Blunkett has in the past conceded that police would not be given the powers simply to stop people on the streets and demand to "see their papers".
Not that so-called "internal passports" are a merely a pet project of a Labour government. The former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Lilley favoured the idea in the 1980s, but the police told him the idea was unhelpful.
In the dog days of John Major's government, then home secretary Michael Howard, on the back of introducing photographic driving licences, proposed an "anti-crime" ID card, only to be shouted down in cabinet by libertarian colleagues.
And, of course, Mrs Thatcher wanted a football supporters' identity card at the height of the 1980s hooligan terrace culture.
Britain abandoned its war-time identity papers, which were used for receiving rations, 50 years ago, although having no form of state-authorised identity card beyond the simple national insurance number puts the UK out of step with 11 of the 15 EU states.
How Britain compares with other countries:
· France: Voluntary ID cards with photographs give access to health, education, voting rights, and are needed for bank and post office transactions, making the carrying of the French card near universal. The police are entitled to stop citizens and demand identification.·Germany: ID cards are compulsory, and citizens must remember a PIN number to accompany them in order to obtain local government services.
· Belgium: mandatory ID cards must be presented to the police if demanded, and detail the citizen's blood group, as well as giving acces to government services.
· Italy: a voluntary ID card that can be used as passport across the EU.
· Netherlands: similar to Italy.
· Portugal: compulsory ID cards with contain both photograph and fingerprints.
· Australia: no ID cards.
· New Zealand: no ID cards.
· USA: no ID cards, although the social security number is essential for most transactions, and much more closely guarded than its British equivalent. Photographic driving licences are so universal they act as virtual unofficial ID cards.
· Japan: No ID cards.
My problem is not only one of the nanny state issues, and how much the government know about me (I don't even like having store cards for supermarkets) it's the cost. No one seems to have really latched on to this much. The final bill is said to be £3 billion , but the final cost is likely (on past track record of Governemtn technological implementations) to be twice that. So thats £6 billion. That is before every government department, every hospital, every police station and every job centre installs the reader machines.
I don't know about you, but I reckon I can find better things to do with £6 billion to combat 'terror'.
Jack Straw, Mr Blunkett's predecessor as home secretary, first floated the idea of a "citizen's access card" shortly after Labour came to power in 1997. The idea was quietly shelved, until the home affairs select committee last year backed the idea of an "entitlement card" as a measure towards checking immigration flows - but also valid for library lending, NHS treatment and benefits claims.
Although that card was intended to voluntary, the home secretary accepted it would be hard to prevent an entitlement access card becoming mandatory. Additionally, there would be the cost of hi-tech security devices, such as machine-verifiable photographs, fingerprints or even iris recognition.
The card would also require the sharing of personal information data across Whitehall departments and local authorities, which, although the prime minister expressed his favour of it, again generated concerns from civil liberty groups. And, more importantly, it raised the possibility of expensive legal actions against the home office if the trillions of pieces of information held on individuals were incorrect, not updated or missing.
After the September 11 attacks, one of Mr Blunkett's first actions was to put forward the idea of an ID card again, despite warnings that organised terrorists were unlikely to deterred by the prospect of forging a piece of plastic.
Although the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation - essentially the unions of low-ranking officers - have expressed support for the scheme, more senior police have acknowledged the scope for greater social and racial conflict that the cards could spark. Mr Blunkett has in the past conceded that police would not be given the powers simply to stop people on the streets and demand to "see their papers".
Not that so-called "internal passports" are a merely a pet project of a Labour government. The former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Lilley favoured the idea in the 1980s, but the police told him the idea was unhelpful.
In the dog days of John Major's government, then home secretary Michael Howard, on the back of introducing photographic driving licences, proposed an "anti-crime" ID card, only to be shouted down in cabinet by libertarian colleagues.
And, of course, Mrs Thatcher wanted a football supporters' identity card at the height of the 1980s hooligan terrace culture.
Britain abandoned its war-time identity papers, which were used for receiving rations, 50 years ago, although having no form of state-authorised identity card beyond the simple national insurance number puts the UK out of step with 11 of the 15 EU states.
How Britain compares with other countries:
· France: Voluntary ID cards with photographs give access to health, education, voting rights, and are needed for bank and post office transactions, making the carrying of the French card near universal. The police are entitled to stop citizens and demand identification.·Germany: ID cards are compulsory, and citizens must remember a PIN number to accompany them in order to obtain local government services.
· Belgium: mandatory ID cards must be presented to the police if demanded, and detail the citizen's blood group, as well as giving acces to government services.
· Italy: a voluntary ID card that can be used as passport across the EU.
· Netherlands: similar to Italy.
· Portugal: compulsory ID cards with contain both photograph and fingerprints.
· Australia: no ID cards.
· New Zealand: no ID cards.
· USA: no ID cards, although the social security number is essential for most transactions, and much more closely guarded than its British equivalent. Photographic driving licences are so universal they act as virtual unofficial ID cards.
· Japan: No ID cards.
My problem is not only one of the nanny state issues, and how much the government know about me (I don't even like having store cards for supermarkets) it's the cost. No one seems to have really latched on to this much. The final bill is said to be £3 billion , but the final cost is likely (on past track record of Governemtn technological implementations) to be twice that. So thats £6 billion. That is before every government department, every hospital, every police station and every job centre installs the reader machines.
I don't know about you, but I reckon I can find better things to do with £6 billion to combat 'terror'.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Evolution
The power of belief always astounds me. The majority of americans (in a recent poll) don't believe in evolution. Now I'm all for believing in a higher power, but to dismiss scientific fact because it doesn't fit in? Just to get all Bill Hicks for a moment - what about the Dinosaurs?
If we teach 'Intelligent design' because we argue that evolution is a theory, then I think that we should teach 'unintelligent design'. The theory that we were all created by when an alsatian living in an interstellar caravan.
Gets me angry................
You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one
word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the
world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time,
you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by
a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a
shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took
the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"Dinosaur fossils? God put those
there to test our faith." Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think
God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "Uh huh." Does that
trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be...fuckin' with our heads? I
have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:
"Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA."
If we teach 'Intelligent design' because we argue that evolution is a theory, then I think that we should teach 'unintelligent design'. The theory that we were all created by when an alsatian living in an interstellar caravan.
Gets me angry................
Paratrooper wins blog awards....
Unofficial results show that www.paratrooper.us has won the Blog awards. Congrats to him. Bourne out of the flames of Moorewatch, where a liberal can get a pretty tough ride for even suggesting the idea of universal healthcare, Para has made a forum where people can discuss things!!!! This is what bloggings all about. Please go over and check him out.
The Producers
I managed to blag tickets to the Producers in the west end last night. My god. It's the best thing I have ever seen. And not just in theatre. I laughed from beginning to end, and there are several standout moments that are pure comedy gold. The springtime for Hitler number is the best musical set peice ever devised. Nathan Lane has it nailed. His comic timing is spot on, and even gags that would be groaners had me crying with laughter simply through his delivery. In what other show can you see a zimmerframe tap number?
In short, if you have to break in to your grannys house to do it, GET A TICKET!
http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/5087
In short, if you have to break in to your grannys house to do it, GET A TICKET!
http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/5087
Nativity Scene Vandalised!!!
I've been waiting for someone to do this...
Beckhams' nativity scene closed after vandal attack
By Louise
Barnett
14 December 2004
Waxwork figures of Victoria and David Beckham
dressed as Mary and Joseph in Madame Tussauds in London were damaged in an
attack.
The figures were removed and the controversial nativity scene closed
off because of the vandalism, said a spokeswoman for Madame Tussauds last night.
"There was some damage caused to the figures of David and Victoria by a member
of the public earlier today."
A man in his twenties queued behind other
visitors before repeatedly punching the waxwork figures and escaping into the
street. The spokeswoman could not confirm the extent of the damage, or say how
it happened. The nativity scene also features Tony Blair, the Duke of Edinburgh
and President George Bush as the three wise men, and Kylie Minogue as an
angel.
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England earlier criticised
the scene. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said: "To have a very special part of
Christianity depicted in this way and its most precious symbol, which is the
coming of God into the world in Jesus Christ, seems to me to be not just
disrespectful to Christians, it is also disrespectful to the heritage of Britain
and does damage to the culture of this country."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=592934
This brings up all manner of issues... celebrity worship, disrespect for religious beliefs, whether this man was justified in damaging the waxworks. Personally I am just waiting for the cctv footage.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Doin' the rounds.........
This has come via paratroopers blog, JimK of Moorewatch fame and several others including jessicarrot, so I might as well get off my arse and post it as well. Broadband problems sorted now so should be able to upkeep this site a bit better from now on......
A) First, recommend to me:
1. a movie. 2. a book. 3. a musical artist, song, or album.
B) Ask me three questions—no more, no less. Ask me anything you want.
C) Go to your blog (if you have one), copy and paste this, and allow everyone to ask you anything.
I think that its a great idea, and will be good to get everyone to go to everyone elses blogs. God knows I could do with the traffic..........
A) First, recommend to me:
1. a movie. 2. a book. 3. a musical artist, song, or album.
B) Ask me three questions—no more, no less. Ask me anything you want.
C) Go to your blog (if you have one), copy and paste this, and allow everyone to ask you anything.
I think that its a great idea, and will be good to get everyone to go to everyone elses blogs. God knows I could do with the traffic..........
