?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous 10

Jul. 23rd, 2009


traceyace

Quiet here isn`t it?


Well,have to add this video just in case no-one saw it.
Gotta love this guy........

May. 18th, 2009

Running

ruthlilycat

Michael Savage!

I can't believe Jacqui Smith put him on that ban list.  She's out of her mind!

Dec. 24th, 2008

Running

ruthlilycat

This is sickening

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1101248/Muslim-mother-living-2-6m-council-house-admits-Im-going-pretend-isnt-great.html

Muslim mother of eight living in £2.6m council house admits: 'I'm not going to pretend it isn't great'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1101248/Muslim-mother-living-2-6m-council-house-admits-Im-going-pretend-isnt-great.html




Aug. 7th, 2008

Running

ruthlilycat

(no subject)

Suddenly being green is not cool any more

As the credit crunch bites, environmental policies are being ditched. But oddly we are doing better at saving the planet

Alice Thomson
Julie Burchill can't stand them. According to her new book, Not in my Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, she thinks all environmentalists are po-faced, unsexy, public school alumni who drivel on about the end of the world because they don't want the working classes to have any fun, go on foreign holidays or buy cheap clothes.
Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, agrees. In an interview with Rachel Sylvester and me, he told us that the “nutbag ecologists” are the overindulged rich who have nothing better to do with their lives than talk about hot air and beans.
So the salad days are over; it's the end of the greens. Where only a year ago the smart new eco-warriors were revered, wormeries and unbleached cashmere jeans are now seen as a middle-class indulgence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4474202.ece

Jul. 20th, 2008

bejeweled turtle

little_liesel

Britain Is Creating Youths Who Have Nothing to Lose by Crime

From The Sunday Times
July 13, 2008

It is remarkable that a Conservative politician can now talk like this without being ridiculed. No one disagrees any longer that Britain is in parts and in places broken; Gallowgate is a horrifying microcosm of broken families, broken spirits, broken health and broken schools; it is a dark place of chronic unemployment, violence and crime, of disorder and fear—a disgrace to the supposedly developed world.


It’s also true that at long last people of all persuasions are beginning to recognise that this social breakdown is due in part to the abdication both of authority and of personal responsibility that began some time after the war. Some are inclined to emphasise the demoralising paternalism of the welfare state, others the permissiveness of the 1960s, but few now question this abdication, at all levels. Not only that—taking personal responsibility is sometimes forbidden, or punished, as when misguided adults try to control delinquent children in the street.


However, while personal responsibility and shared morality are essential to a good society and the only glue for a broken one, neither can be had just by whistling for them. Both depend on an instinctive sense of a social contract. Conventional morality is meaningless to a boy who has nothing whatsoever to gain by good behaviour. Personal responsibility means nothing if you have grown up neglected, abused and powerless among adults who hardly know what it is and feel powerless themselves.


Cameron said in Glasgow that “social problems are often the consequences of the choices that people make”. There’s truth in that and a truth that has been wilfully neglected for decades. But the countervailing truth is that free choice—and real personal responsibility—barely exist for some people, least of all for those who are most likely to cause problems.


Take knife crime, an emblem of what is wrong with British society. Imagine the history of a boy who gets a knife and might well use it. I always think of Jo, a Notting Hill boy I used to know, but there are countless others like him. Everything that happened to Jo could have been designed to turn him into a social menace.


He came here from Latin America with his single mother, “for the NHS”, he told me. His mother worked in a bar here and produced other children with other men, with whom she shared a council flat. Jo and his brother lived on their own, as young schoolboys, in another council flat.


He went, sometimes, to a notorious school where he learnt nothing but, being bright and charismatic, he became a leader of others in the street. He turned to petty crime and then to worse; drug running or dealing is the usual activity round here. He became a notorious bully and actually tortured some boys I knew of to stop them giving evidence against him in court; the case collapsed. Having impregnated a girl he was later removed by social services to some other unlucky borough.


The point of this all-too-common story is the damage that was done to Jo from his earliest years. It is not to excuse his crimes or the damage he has done to others. My own son has been mugged many times and not long ago called me from A&E in the Mile End Road, east London, where he was being stitched up by a doctor; a group of youths had attacked him, beaten him and slashed his head open with a beer can. So I do not feel soft on street crime; it terrifies me.


However, I do believe that boys like Jo are in an impossible position. Either they are so damaged by early neglect—and there is a lot of evidence that neglected babies fail to develop, cognitively or emotionally—and so led astray by delinquent parenting that they are incapable of living an orderly life or holding down a job.


Libraries of research have been done into this. For babies and young children, a failure to bond with their mothers, or constant separation anxiety, lack of attention and stimulation or actual abuse do permanent damage to the brain, just as bad parenting and lack of good male role models do other kinds of damage. Two common outcomes are a lack of empathy and impaired impulse control, both of which are associated with violent crime. Such children may be very much less capable of personal responsibility, or of rational choice, than children from more normal homes.

Minette Marrin, London Times, July 13, 2008


Personal responsibility was the political buzzword of last week. The prime minister urged us to take personal responsibility for global waste, poverty and pollution by eating up our greens—I hope he himself left a clean plate after consuming his 57 varieties of high-status food at the G8.


Less absurdly, David Cameron spoke of personal responsibility at a by-election launch in the miserable depths of Glasgow’s Gallowgate about “broken” Britain. It is a society, he said, that is “in danger of losing its sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and yes, even public morality


Alternatively for bright, ambitious boys such as Jo, hungry for life’s much advertised pleasures but too illiterate and unemployable to earn them, crime does seem a rational choice. “The world is not thy friend,” Romeo said to the poverty-stricken apothecary as the way to persuade him to commit the crime of selling poison.


What can anyone in youth offender rehabilitation schemes offer such boys as an alternative—shelf-stacking at a supermarket, cleaning the streets, the contempt of his peers? For a young, vital, angry man an Asbo often seems better than Asda. A criminal conviction means almost nothing to someone who has almost nothing to lose but his benighted freedom.


Morality depends on having something to lose. It isn’t just a matter of learning right from wrong, least of all in a post-religious society. Morality is socially constructed. I will respect your property and your person because I want you to respect mine. We both have something to lose. One does not have to be educated in political philosophy to understand that ancient deal. But if I have neither property nor respect from anyone, what’s in the deal for me?


That is Jo’s problem. Neither an appeal to morality nor the threat of a community sentence or the brutalities of jail—90% of prisoners are mentally ill—will solve it for him. Nor will any of that solve the problems he presents to the rest of us. It seems to me heartless to suggest that it might.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4322604.ece

Jul. 7th, 2008

Running

ruthlilycat

(no subject)

Claim: Kids who say 'yuck' may be racist
Jul 7 12:42 PM US/Eastern

198 Comments
LONDON, July 7 (UPI) -- Toddlers who say "yuck" when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.

The London-based National Children's Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday.

The guide, titled Young Children and Racial Justice, warns adults that babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to "recognize different people in their lives."

The bureau says to be aware of children who "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuck'."

"Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships," the guide says.

Staff members are advised not to ignore racist actions and to condemn them when they occur.


Copyright 2008 by United Press International

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20080707-122008-1071&show_article=1

Jun. 22nd, 2008

Running

ruthlilycat

(no subject)

Cameron storms ahead in polls as Brown's popularity slumps at the end of disastrous first year

brown

The decline in Gordon Brown’s ratings since he became Prime Minister a year ago this Friday is underlined in a Mail On Sunday poll today showing he has been overtaken by David Cameron in virtually every regard.

Running

ruthlilycat

(no subject)

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.

The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.

'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'

There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.

However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'

In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.

Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.

'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.

More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

May. 25th, 2008

Running

ruthlilycat

(no subject)

Under-fire Brown tells Labour plotters: It’s me ... or a suicide pact for the party

Gordon Brown

Panicking Labour chiefs has tried to head off the growing threat of an attempt to sack Gordon Brown by warning plotters that they would be committing mass political suicide. His allies claimed that if he was ousted, the new leader would be forced to call an immediate General Election which Labour was doomed to lose. Their only hope of avoiding a landslide defeat in the next few months was to give Mr Brown two more years to revive Labour’s fortunes, they said.

 

Previous 10