Free Speech for the Unlovely 225


I always seem to get back from Africa physically exhausted. I now have to tackle all the organisation of a family Christmas at the last minute. It is both the charm and disadvantage of this blog that the blogging is just me – it has no staff, and no revenue. That is not to devalue the contibution of the volunteer comment moderators – who help out with other things too – and the technical help from Tim, Clive and Richard and the the hosting team. But if I am not writing, nothing happens.

When I am lacking time or energy for deeper thinking, I tend to throw out some provocative thoughts from the top of my mind to see what people make of them. I am worrying today about the attacks on people of whom I disapprove.

I blogged recently about excessive police action against a blogger who argues against the existence of man-made climate change. I think he is wrong, but I don’t see why he should be the victim of police raids. I am going to surprise you by saying that I think that the hounding of Aidan Burley is going too far. Bad taste humour around the Nazis has existed throughout my lifetime – and was brought gloriously to the screen in the brilliant Mel Brooks’ The Producers (the first one, with the fantastic Zero Mostel).

Burley’s stag party seems rather a throwback to the Federation of Conservative Students of the late 70s, important elements of which delighted in singing Nazi songs to emphasise how right wing and taboo-free they were, with an element of self-parody (I speak as an eye-witness). You always worried there were genuine Third Reich sympathies in there – as of course there were so strongly in the British elite in the 1930s. That is the underlying worry in the Burley case – but if there were any evidence of real sympathy for Nazi views from Burley, it would have been dug up by now. I think we should just take this as bad taste humour a la Producers – a play which presumably cannot be produced under French law? Burley has been punished, revealed as a twit, and we should move on.

John Terry is a man whose TV persona and reported behaviour I have always found repulsive. I don’t know what he (or Suarez in a related case) actually said. I find racial abuse absolutely unacceptable. But again, I do not think that where it occurs between two individuals, and unless it is persistent and repeated over a period, it is a matter for the state and police. Not all bad behaviour should be a matter of higher intervention, and shaming can be a good sanction in itself. Both individuals and society have ways to sort things out without always involving the state or constituted organisations within it. I doubt Terry will do it again and it has been made plain that this is unacceptable behaviour in football. It is enough.

The same goes for Jeremy Clarkson. Again, total wanker. But nobody could have seen his TV appearance on the One Show and felt that he actually believed or advocated that strikers should be shot. His body language and tone of voice made it plain he was indulging in hyperbole with the object of being humorous. Exaggerated polemic should not be banned, or even censured. The real problem here is balance. Very right wing polemicists are very often allowed free rein to mouth off on broadcast media. On TV, opposing polemicists (like, err, me) are strictly banned. On radio, George Galloway on Talk Sport is pretty well a lone example. Personally I welcome the vigour of Clarkson’s expression – if only someone equally firm were allowed on to argue with him.

Finally, I am going to defend Herman Cain. No longer a candidate, and his tax and other policies were completely barking mad, therefore pretty mainstream Republican. But I saw very little wrong in anything he was alleged to have done in his love life. One woman alleged that he made a physical advance – put his hand on her leg – towards her in his car, after a dinner where she had asked him for help. It seems to me his behaviour was perfectly normal, and the important thing is she asked him to stop, and he did stop. If men were not allowed to make such advances, the human race would die out. Desisting once it is plain your advances are unwelcome is the important thing. The long term affair alleged was entirely mutual and consenting. Chatting up employees is tasteless, but ought not be a crime.

Burley, Terry, Clarkson and Cain are all people of whom, in different ways, I do not approve and with whose views on life I am heartily at odds. But I don’t hold the view that only people who hold certain approved views should be able to wander round and function, or that we should all be limited to certain highly constrained social behaviours. They are all, in various ways, victims of galloping political correctness. I thought I would express some sympathy for them. Human beings have a right to be wrong, and sometimes foolish. It is part of the human condition.


225 thoughts on “Free Speech for the Unlovely

1 2 3 4 8
  • Scouse Billy

    Excellent post, Craig.
    .
    I shall refrain from posting about climate or Luis Suarez though both are close to my heart.
    .
    Best wishes to you and yours and fellow commentators for a relaxing and peaceful Christmas.
    .
    YNWA

  • havantaclu

    Great to see Berchmans over here and hope to hear his voice loud and clear during the New Year as well. The rhyming words were unintentional, by the way!

    Peace and love to everyone here – and to their families – at this festive season, and for ever

    Jeni

  • Tom Welsh

    Don’t worry about frequency of posting, Craig. We are perfectly happy to wait for your valuable and insightful thoughts! No one can be brilliant, or even original, all the time; we all need to rest and reflect.

    Your views on free speech are, of course, thoroughly sound. As Voltaire didn’t actually say (the quotation was invented much later) “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. (The bit about “defend to the death” is a dead giveaway: Voltaire was far too canny and down-to-earth to stick his neck out that far). Freedom of speech is indivisible, and must be conceded equally to views we like and views we dislike and despise – otherwise it is completely meaningless.

    I found the Hurley episode the most distasteful (although it has its funny side). Noticing the Daily Mail’s (as usual) exceptionally over-the-top condemnation, I posted a comment quoting Lord Rothermere’s 1932 article which said, among other things, “The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany”. Strangely enough, my comment was not published.

  • Fedup

    Two points of interest;
    ,
    ZBC interviewing a Syrian dissident, was bordering bizarre; the chap started with elaborating about the security arrangements a the bomb site, and “leaping into the conclusion”; Syrian government what done it! Not satisfied with his arse about tits analysis, he then mentioned the numbers of dead in some place or other, in which despite the dissidents best efforts, the body count was not high enough, and “leaping into conclusion”; Syrian government have nicked the corpses, and today have left them in the bomb site!
    ,
    That is “journalism for you” at its best embedding!
    ,
    ,
    Down the rabbit we go, to find that a US court acting on behalf of the 9/11 families, has had Saudi removed from the list of cash cows to be filched , for no apparent reason, however instead the court case has added new cash cows; Taliban, and Iran. So Iran is wot done 9/11 now!
    ,
    WTF in carnation is going on in the insane world of the oligarchs? These bastards and their advisor have been snorting so much shit, they can no longer differentiate the reality from the fiction. Saudi millionaire Bin Laden, and fourteen of the nineteen Saudi hijackers were the main players in the 9/11 the official story. However, the strikeout of the Saudi from the court case with no apparent rhyme or reason, and the addition of Iran on to the court list, is the result of nothing more than hallucinations of those so doped up wankers whom have even forgotten their own cock and bull story line.

  • John Goss

    Scouse Billy, I echo your comments about free speech, even for those with a wierd outlook to my point of view.
    .
    On another topic I would value your advice as to what campaigning was done for the Hillsborough inquiry document release e-petition got more than 100,000 signatures. I’ve set one up myself calling for Dominic Grieve to resign over not granting an inquest into the death of David Kelly.

  • anno

    ‘it turns the legal system into an arbiter of truth, not of justice.’
    My stepson recently got beaten up and the solicitors advised him that he would be the one ending up with a criminal record because the law accepts lies from his assailants as equally valid to truth.
    The law accepts false accusations from one side of a divorce as equally valid to the truth.
    Solicitors mercilessly reap the unfortunate by provoking the disputing parties with false accusations for the benefit of their own pockets.
    We, the legal professionals demand shedloads of dosh for existing, and having to listen to your pathetic problems, about which we neither give a shit nor will lend a hand to resolve.
    Don’t come to us whingeing about truth or justice.
    Have you signed the contractual agreement and credit card forms?
    Ok fuck off.
    From the humblest cuntry bumpkin solicitor, creaming young to old by stirring up controversy where there still existed an element of trust, to Gus O’Donnell tarting for Israel in the Foreign office, the whole pack of them are devoid of any integrity. As to the media, at least they acknowledge that they do it for money and malice.

  • Mary

    O/T Don’t go anywhere near Hammersmith flyover/A4. It has been closed until January as the structure has been found to be unsafe. Gridlock on diversions are massive.

  • Iain Orr

    Submitted this hours ago and puzzled why it has not appeared.
    .
    Craig’s blog has a fine title. Changing one letter gives it an allusive McCartney lilt [ “All th’unlovely people, where do they all come from?”]. His defiant tolerance of unlovely words (from Clarkson/ Terry etc) also recalls the playground response to being called names : “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Richard’s point – “It is fundamentally wrong in principle to legislate that a certain fact is true” – also recalls Burns’ birthday reminder to George III in 1786 that “Facts are chiels that winna ding”. [The phrase from stanza 4 of “The Dream” is best appreciated in the context of the complete poem: its 15 stanzas read here – http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/a_dream/ – by Siobhan Redmond with great accuracy.]

    .
    But words do not just hurt; they can cause lasting damage; and facts are often used disingenuously, however accurate they may be. For instance, when Mary refers to Hillary’s “adulterer husband”, branding the scarlet letter on Bill is surely meant to make apologists for him blush for his past behaviour. The intent is not to be purely factual , nor to be complimentary. Labels (“neo-cons”/ “socialists”/ “ignorant”/ “Zionist”/ “terrorist”) are in many contexts not factual but a form of insult – like “Proddie”/ “Kike”/ the n-word or the c-word.
    .
    So the question is often: does this insult amount to a deliberate and lasting injury to one or more people or to public standards of behaviour such that the words gestures or dress (or its absence) are comparable to real Anti-Semitic sticks or Sharia stones? A secondary question is – even if deplorable, do any injuries caused by the insult need to be redressed under civil/ criminal legislation? I’m with Craig on this: a healthy society will not encourage insulting behaviour, but it will generally leave discouraging it to non-legal sanctions. That said, I have seen a father call his daughter “stupid” to her face in a way that morally deserved far greater condemnation than if he had struck her hard enough to break a bone.

  • CanSpeccy

    You refer to “a blogger who argues against the existence of man-made climate change” who, from your earlier post is clearly identifiable as Roger Tattersall, aka TallBloke.
    .
    In view of the well-known butterfly effect, perhaps the most useful discovery from climate modelling, to “deny the existence of man-made climate change” would be rather stupid. I don’t think Roger Tattersall is stupid. Therefore, I suspect you are again misrepresenting him. But, if not, perhaps you’d provide evidence for your claim that he denies an effect of human activity on the climate.
    .
    In fact, acrimony over climate change arises from disagreement over the magnitude and even the direction of the various possible effects of human activity on temperature, precipitation, wind velocities, etc. Tattersall’s involvement in the debate has been largely to do with the integrity of the evidence presented for predictions of catastrophe if the present course of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is pursued.
    .
    Why you repeatedly suggest otherwise raises the question of whether you are simply incapable of grasping the bare essentials of the dispute or are being deliberately defamatory. Perhaps you would clarify this point.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    You and your family have a peaceful Christmas, Craig.
    .
    Btw, I note a highly favourable mention of you as whistleblower in general, and your Fox-Werrity analysis in particular, in the current issue of ‘Lobster’ magazine.

  • Scouse Billy

    John Goss, I am flattered that you ask my advice on campaigning.
    .
    I take no credit for the succes of the successful Hillsborough e-petition.
    .
    All I can tell you is that there are a lot of Liverpool fans and our passion to see fair play is truly inspiring.
    .
    As a funny, Sky Sports had their online football poll for best player of 2011 (calendar year). Cut off was announced as midnight last night. At about 7 or 8pm the tweets started with Luis Suarez 15 points ahead of anyone else: “What’s the betting Sky will try and scupper this because they don’t want to announce a “racist” Liverpool player as winner announced on Goals on Sunday?”
    .
    Sure enough, more and more Liverpool fans were tweating later last night that they couldn’t get their votes on Luis Suarez – they just got a white screen. It was soon established that votes for all other players were being processed normally.
    .
    Then midnight passed but it was still possible to vote – for anyone but Suarez, that is. Conspiracists, us? Lol.
    .
    Fortunately one blogger took regular screen shots and video’d and uploaded the repeated attempts to vote for Suarez and the uniquitous white screen all to a cloud repositary via an app that verified the time of each shot or video.
    .
    The voting finally cut odd at 7.30am with Manchester United’s, Nani (at long bloody last…) the winner!!!
    .
    I’d say a hell of a lot of us let Sky know our thoughts and the fact that we’d caught them cheating and could prove it and were itching to let everyone know, in these Murdochphobic times 😉
    .
    Here’s Sky’s announcement, spot the alleged error (honest mistake, sure) and provable omissions: white screen, we got caught in flagrante by bloody scousers ;).
    .
    http://www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/0,,12384_7393506,00.html
    .
    Merry Christmas indeed, Sky (Sun partner)
    .
    John, back to your question – the Hillsborogh Justice Campaign was well organised and worked with many others: supporters groups from other clubs, MP’s, councillors, sympathetic journalists and latterly bloggers. I think it’s about putting in the hard time spreading the word and co-opting others to do the same and putting as much pressure on those in public life who have a moral duty to put their heads above the parapet as possible. That is my opinion, I claim no expertise.
    .
    YNWA

  • Suhayl Saadi

    I agree with Craig wrt the all-too-often reflexive recourse to policing/legal measures in relation to matters which are really at most disciplinary in nature. Also, the tabloid need for soap drama, where ludicrous comments get blown-up into major national issues – it’s largely distraction, really, from the really important matters. The ‘Big Brother’ kerfuffle b/w Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetty was another such example. Basically, it’s all spectacle.
    .

    Also, it’s really facile to ascribe inequities in society to a few ‘bad’ celebrities (some of whom revel in their ‘badness’, like the professional wrestlers of old – anyone remember Mick McManus and Jim Breaks? – it’s part of their sales pitch), so that everyone else can feel vindicated in their purity virtue when in fact, the problems are systemic in nature and reside in dynamics other than those which drive these stupid spectacles.

  • Jon

    @Leonard:
    .
    > Whatever the facts, no government, media (Guardian for example) or agency
    > is entitled to tell people what to think
    .
    I agree, but equally most of us need some direction from the experts on the issue of climate change. I wouldn’t pick a debate on heart surgery with a heart surgeon that was about to operate on me: I would trust that his medical knowledge was based on peer-reviewed science. And so it is with climatology. Why trust the Daily Telegraph when a lot of climatologists views are available directly online?
    .
    From what I’ve read, the overwhelming bulk of climatologists are saying that AGW is happening, and that governmental efforts to combat this are too little, too late. And yet I sometimes meet people, who are neither climatologists, nor have they read anything on climatology, and still say “I don’t agree with [man-made] climate change views”. One such person I discussed this with later revealed that, as a working-class man made good in business, he felt he could ill-afford the tax implications of going green. Nevertheless, he couldn’t see that he’d made strong, determined statements about an area of science he knew nothing about, nor that it was the financial implications that had led him to do so.
    .
    Either the energy lobby’s PR is working, or we’re stuffed because of the selfishness of the human condition.
    .
    > climate change lobby
    .
    That made me smile. I wonder, do you think the climate change “lobby” is in the same league as the oil lobby, financially or in terms of message reach?

  • Scouse Billy

    For goodness sake, Jon you cannot stereotype all sceptics as unqualified on a multi-disciplinary and generalised “science” such as “climatology”.
    .
    Matthias Kleespies, German environmentalist: A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?
    ,
    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
    .
    I’d like to know where you place Freeman Dyson in terms of competence.

  • Fedup

    Jon,
    “climate change “lobby” is in the same league as the oil lobby”,
    ,
    The Climate Change lobby is set up by the oil lobby, there lies the problem. Thus far, based on the eminent findings of the “Climate Changers” what have we learned?
    ,
    Is it not other than;
    1- man made global warming
    2- end of the “fossil” fuel is nigh
    3- man made pollutants are destroying the planet
    4- overpopulation is threatening; hunger, thirst, man made disaster.
    ,
    Basically the climate lobby and Greens have a problem with the mankind, and the sooner this bastard species is eradicated the happier these misanthropist will be.
    ,
    As yet there has not been a single solitary case of credible alternative energy production method that has been forwarded, other than childish, ancient, and make believe sources. The forwarded alternatives so far;
    ,
    Wind power generation, which is basically; useless, expensive, ugly, noisy, and monstrous constructs suffering from unreliability and low power output, and higher costs of energy production.
    ,
    Solar power, which means every two years the cells need to be replaced with an ongoing costs of replacements of the storage batteries, and associated electronics, suffering from unreliability and higher costs of energy production.
    ,
    Bio fuels, which means less land for food production for people for more fuel for cars, which given the aggregate carbon foot prints of the production would equate to burning the cleaner “fossil” fuel derivatives, at cheaper costs.
    ,
    Ban the solid fuels, ie coal, peat, etc.
    ,
    Ban the nuclear power production.
    ,
    The over all thrust of the efforts of the climate change lobby has been to increase the costs of the fuels and energy, whilst steadily sewing seeds of misanthropy as a religion. These days being a human being is by default to be a polluter of the first order, a potential rapist, murderer, and food waster. This phenomena in turn has created huge wind fall profits for the energy companies, and bigger tax revenues for the governments that have shifted the taxation away from the oligarchs, and plutocrats onto the standard Jo.
    ,
    Therefore, climate lobby is a creation of oil lobby that has helped increase the oil companies profits, and their unfettered access to cheaper oil fields through deployment of the armed forces of developed nations in sequestration of the oil fields of Johnny foreigner, with a view to regulating the oil production in the way of maintenance of higher oil prices.

  • Sid

    I disagree with one line….Jeremy Clarkson is not a wanker……he is a big fat effing wanker…

  • Jon

    Hi @Scouse:
    .
    > For goodness sake, Jon you cannot stereotype all sceptics as unqualified on a
    > multi-disciplinary and generalised “science” such as “climatology”.
    .
    That wasn’t what I was saying, although I suspect I do tend towards that view anyway, and that may have come out in my post. But when I say I’ve spoken to business-oriented sceptics who know nothing about climate change, I meant precisely that – they have used their short-termist opposition to green taxation or the possibility of wholesale social change, and taken the only possible “view” on a scientific issue that fits with their starting point. The self-made man I spoke to two weeks ago admitted he knew nothing about climatology at all – I take the view that the `sow doubt` tactics of the energy lobby enable people like him to sound off without having done the research first. I am sure this sort of cognitive dissonance generalises to other instances of non-experts taking a strong view, and is very human.
    .
    Out of interest, why put the word ‘climatology’ in quotes? It’s recognised as a mainstream science, even by AGW sceptics, surely?
    .
    Thanks for the link, I’ll add it to my reading list.

  • Jon

    ^ Hmm, not sure about that link. Had a quick read of the first page, and it’s not written in the measured tones of a scientific paper – the tone feels slanted towards anti-AGW, rather than taking a balanced approach. The last page links to an anti-AGW website called “Slaying The Dragon”, which is hardly a reliable citation – there are a couple of other similar web references, but no academically acceptable citations.
    .
    I couldn’t find a copy of this paper on an academic website, nor evidence that it has been peer reviewed (it is not formatted in a way that would be publishable, and I am guessing it hasn’t, but am happy to be proven wrong). In fact I couldn’t find an academic/university user page for Matthias Kleespies either, but it might be because it’s buried in the search results.

  • John Goss

    Scouse Billy, thanks for your opinions. They sound logical. I bet half the people from all clubs (for my sins I’m a Blackburn Rovers supporter, and I suspect we’re going to get a drubbing on Monday at Liverpool) would support a petition to take away the omnipotent powers of recent attorney generals. The last three have all usurped their official roles. Parliament is the lawmaker. To take a decision not to hold an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly breaches an AG’s job-description. I realise it would be virtually impossible to get rid of Dominic Grieve on his own volition. But the petition is doing well. It isthe Christmas season and 250 people have already signed calling for his resignation. My understanding is 1 in 4 people believe there are suspicious circumstances in the death of Dr David Kelly. Please get your friends to sign. You could be the 251st.
    .
    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/26133

  • Clark

    Fedup, no, humanity are currently encountered a set of real, physical limits. We are victims of our own success as a species. Our global population has risen with our hydrocarbon based technology, it has quadrupled in the last century.
    .
    The effects of burning hydrocarbons were clear to be seen before all the old buildings were pressure-washed. Things have been “improving”; the coal that stained those buildings achieved much less than the cleaner petrochemicals that fueled the next wave of technology. Nevertheless, particulates from petrochemical combustion was contributing to “global dimming”, which was helping to hold global warming in check, until the stricter emissions controls of the 1980s cleaned the air up.
    .
    Excess carbon in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans where it is effectively acidic, decreasing the natural alkalinity of the sea water. This endangers the base of the food chain.
    .
    By digging up old vegetation we’ve effectively been using energy faster than it arrives from the Sun, hence our sudden population increase. Humanity has two options. Either use energy no faster than the rate that we can collect it from the Sun, or find another source of energy with less serious side-effects.
    .
    Unfortunately, the commercial nuclear power stations designs were developed from reactors chosen because they produced plutonium for weapons. Consequently, our power stations rapidly turn our small natural supply of uranium 235 into a radioactive mix of various uranium, plutonium and other actinide isotopes. Our uranium would be gone in decades if all energy were produced this way. There are better ways, but it was the Cold War and they weren’t developed.
    .
    It is a great shame that instead of getting together and solving our problems, humans are fighting over the scraps and trying to use every calamity as an opportunity, even to the point of creating such calamities to be exploited. But it was ever thus. This is an unprecedented situation, human have never been so numerous or had such power over matter and energy, yet still we see the same old stupid, destructive responses. There is nothing new about the way Humanity are currently failing. The problem lies in the nature of dominance.

  • Fedup

    Clark,
    The Malthusian take on the human population rise is blaming the victim and not the guilty culprits. We have not been successful as a specious, other than Earth, where else have we moved onto? The dumb notions of population limits, are the brain farts of the same sick bastards who have brought about “racial difference”. (for a separate race/strain there needs to be a minimum of 35% differences, the max differentials in humans is 17%).
    ,
    Rises in Carbon levels; given the primitive state of our climatic sciences, as well as our blissful ignorance of anything outside the Earth, coupled with the inane arrogance and certainty associated with little knowledge, have bought about the current brouhaha about “global warming”. Debating the finer points of science is a distraction from the realities we are faced with.
    ,
    Given that our system of banking that has been totally in control of the oligarchs, and has come to be so fucked up that the banks are running out of money and not lending to each other, as an example. to have faith in the pontifications of a bunch of shitty arsed nitwits, encouraged by the lucrative grants (I have worked with these venal bastard kind who will prostitute their science for the sake of funds or better career prospects )is lunacy.
    ,
    The fact that we have not seen any credible push for any kind of credible alternative energy ought to be the Boson to indicate “rise in carbon levels/global warming/climate change” it is all a scam to rip off the punters from their hard earned cash, by appealing to their altruism in saving the planet.
    ,
    You mention the “dangers” of the nuclear energy production, fact that these dangers are facing who and what you do not mention. Currently the nuclear nations have enough nukes to lay the Earth to waste thrice over, so to see the rise of a few more powers with couple more nukes somehow is a moot point. However the powerful oil lobby has turned this point into the point of debate against proliferation of nuclear power (with USSR MAD was good, but with others is not good, because they are suicidal!!!!) . That is accepting your contention about the production of fissile material (incidentally I disagree with this contention).
    ,
    Stop hating human beings, and realise we are far too few in numbers in the vast expanse of the space. Furthermore, it is our systems of governance, resource management and above all, misanthropy that is the cause of our current problem, and not the next human being along.

  • glenn

    From ScouseBilly (23 Dec, 2011 – 4:16 pm): “I shall refrain from posting about climate or Luis Suarez though both are close to my heart.”
    .
    Indeed. Clearly, you’re a man who’s word can be accepted at face value.

  • Scouse Billy

    Jon, in context, I was demonstrating that one doesn’t have to be a climate scioentist to be sceptical. In fact a historical background to the theory of Arrhenius, whose Greenhouse Effect is at the heart of today’s AGW debate, is essential to understand that AGW theory relies on extremely shaky theoretical physics and has never been demonstrated empirically.
    .
    “Climatology” is not a degree subject, I’ve come across. The main climate scientists tend to have degrees in Geology, Geography, Statistics, etc.
    .
    John, I think you may be right – Liverpool is as unified as ever, Blackburn sadly not, but we had our own saga with the cowboys… these things do pass.
    .
    Yes, I was disappointed with Grieve, I imagine he’s been seriously “leaned on”.
    .
    Perhaps a press conference in support from the 5 doctors and Norman Baker would be the way to go if possible.

  • Tet-a-Тет

    With all respect to your traditions, can anyone tell me why you celebrate christmas? Do you guys really think it is birthday of Jesus? When was the calendar adopted? Meant no offence, i just want to know the truth.

  • Clark

    I once met an alien. “Where is your home planet?” I asked. She looked at me oddly, “A long way from here; you wouldn’t have heard of it. What about you? Do you have a nice cave to live in?”
    .
    Please don’t accuse me of hating Humanity. Public good sense (as well as vast expense) has constrained the nuclear power industry, the same good sense that I believe would approve of a solution like this, if the practice proves as good as the theory:
    .
    http://energyfromthorium.com/plan/
    .
    The problem of the human condition is the interaction of interpersonal dominance, money, and power. Those who obtain and hold power do so merely because they are good at doing so, not because they make good decisions for Humanity as a whole. Consequently, we see a whole load of bad, weird and contradictory decisions implemented by combinations of force, manipulation, deception and financial pressure. It’s not that there’s a powerful, manipulative intelligence behind it. Rather, it’s a battle between powerful, manipulative idiots.

1 2 3 4 8

Comments are closed.