Jeez, can these politicos snivel ever the more sanctimoniously?
I watched Question Time last night, listening to the bleeding-heart parliament peons joust on the subject of global warming.
"Only a fool would contest that this a man-made phenomenon…."
"We should tax pollution….."
"Scientific evidence says…."
The last point really gets to me, as I hear it repeated again and again like a magic mantra. I hear of this "scientific evidence" from Planeteer proselytizers , but no one actually really elaborates on it further than "Oh, Gaia – look at the icecaps melting – we’re raping the bountiful Mother Earth!" And now , because of this mysterious "overwhelming evidence", these politicos plan to bleed all of us ever the more of freedom and finance, all in the name of their "good cause", their new religion.
Fundamentalist Islam can’t hold an aeroplane cutlery knife to the throat of Gaiacentric Scientism! Now there’s a evangelic thought virus fast spreading across the globe….
But then again, if the likes of Mike O’ Brien, Pritt Patel, Al Gore et al (heh) really did give a shit about the environment and wanted to save it from the scourge of mankind they’d set an example by slitting their own throats from ear-to-ear, live from in the Amazonian rainforests; that way they could decompose, fertilizing the green earth with their own blood and bone……
Besides, think of all the carbon emissions that these Dogma Drones plague the air with every time they open their mouths – I know I feel polluted!
I went to see Outlaw on Wednesday. I must say that since the transition into the new millennium the British film industry seems to produce films of a calibre worthy enough to stand next to the best of Hollywood; we got the the likes of Dog Soldiers, 28 Days Later and now this – a competent vigilante flick, based in and drawing inspiration from contemporary Britain. Filmed with grit firmly in mind, it actually achieves a rare feat and makes cinematic violence look and sound ugly, even when perpetrated by the protagonists. Even so, I really, really dislike the whole use of NYPD Blue/ Bourne Supremacy camera effects to convey "realism", which always comes off as plain fucking annoying to me. When your flick gets diminished in watchability as a result of this hyper-"realism", perhaps a little artistic licence doesn’t rate as a bad idea…..
Also, in terms of story, I really hate the tendency of many a vigilante film to go back on itself and bring the protagonists to (legal) justice. In keeping with the harsh reality slant of the picture, legal system gets portrayed as somewhat inept – up to the point when they catch wind of those that can do their jobs better than them after which they bare their fangs and hound the Outlaw Gang with bloodthirsty vigour.
Tragicomically, the Outlaw most sympathetic to, and half-mired in, the legal system – paradoxically the one with the most stake in seeking out his own justice – gets to feel the full force of betraying/ competing against his colleagues…
"Vengeance is mine,"says the Law – don’t you just love last-minute moralistic concessions?
(Still, even with all that, the writers and director did some kind of good by one of the vigilantes; knowing that Danny Dyer comes from Newham, specifically the parts I reside(d), I can see where he drew on the inspiration for his role…)
So the Western powers finally see fit fling condemnation at Mugabe after all this time
….
How sweet…
It sure beats their silence when news of youth rape camps and assaults on his civilian opposition first saw print several years back.
Looks like the sand finally falls from the eyes of Bush and Blair after all this time mired in the Middle East; with apologies to Johnny Nash, they can see clearly now Saddam has goonnnnne.
Perhaps Blair will send a strike force into Zimbabwe to sort Mugabe and his goons out….
…… or perhaps even fly out there to voice his contempt for the regime?
Oh wait….sorry! Think of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by air travel – what the fuck came over me to even think that?
~MRDA~
I wish I could live for free off the taxpayer’s dollar by scaring them with falsehoods and guesstimations from the first day of preschool to their last breath. It occurs to me that “Think of the children” is all you have to say to get whatever you want and live like a parasite off of the hardworking believers and get rid of everything you have a distaste for. Censorship, murder, theft, taxation without representation, bypassing the constitution, rigged trials, it’s all okay if you do it in the name of an alleged ‘victim’ or potential ‘victim’ who hasn’t a public voice to deny you as their savior.
Global Warming
Anyone who cares about the state of the world 50-100 years from now and doesn’t take global warming seriously is probably making a grave mistake. The reason scientific evidence isn’t often paraded out by the media is because the amount of scientific knowledge required to understand the evidence makes it seem chimerical to most people. Oh, it’s possible that global warming might not be as serious as commonly predicted, but to gamble on it is foolish. I don’t have much time right now to direct you to resources on the topic or to put effort into an in depth explanation, otherwise i would. However if you don’t give a damn what the world is like 50-100 years from now then it’s a null issue.
Heres this http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-11/975357138.Es.r.html
and this http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Hypocrits can be hypocrits and still speak useful information. Really, who isn’t a hyprocrit?
lol. you had like 3 journal entries here!
well I just wanted to remark on the whole global come to jesus movement. The same set of scientists that scream about global warming were the same set (categorically maybe not literally) that in the 70’s were heralding the next ice age. The simple truth is we have a group of people trying to read tea leaves in the form of a scant two / three hundred years of solid record keeping vs millions of years of actual existence. That’s like blinking in a dim room and telling me the colors of 5 objects in the room. You’d be lucky to hit 3, and if i demanded shades, you’d be SOL.
I like George Carlin’s approach to this in his humor. Mankind can’t destroy the planet, we might be able to reduce our ability to LIVE on it mostly through localized pollution, but ultimately if mankind goes extinct, it won’t affect the earth at all. He feels the sole reason man exists is because the earth wanted plastic. heh.
there are two seperate issues here, which are scant ever enumerated as seperate by our cathode ray brainwashers:
1: is it in fact the case that humans are causing global warming to some significant degree?
2: should we care?
i’ll say here its pretty hard to dispute #1:
anyone else have an explanation for why it shot up to 111 degrees fahrenheit (44 degrees centigrade) IN MARCH??
that said, #2 is much more ambiguous. unless it harms us also, which is open to debate depending on what the possible effects are, what do we care if we discomfort gaea alone?
I find it to be an odd paradox that usually the same people that harp endlessly over “scientific evidence says” when at the same time “the Bible is nothing but total lies and crap.”
So which is real?
Answer: There’s there isn’t as much actual truth in either than the followers of both believe there is.
I consider myself a Christian too. But I don’t take the Bible literally.