Fracking my ass

Here's an interesting political/business tactic. The BBC article leads with...

"Residents affected by fracking could be paid some of the proceeds of shale gas projects, the government has suggested."

There's the misleading bold faced lie. Obviously an attempt to bribe away opposition from residents. Easy to see. Note please, the word "could". Odds are they won't see a penny, but for the moment lets assume they powers that be, meant to use the word "will", so where does the money come from? Well, the article goes on to say...

"A shale wealth fund was unveiled in 2014 to set aside up to 10% of the tax proceeds from fracking to benefit communities in the UK hosting wells."

Now that point right there says everything you need to know about how government works with oil companies. The tax-payer will pay for it out of tax, while the companies destroying the environment pay nothing extra to resolve the issues.

You might counter by stating that its coming from the tax the companies pay, and you'd be right. But that's missing the point. The amount of tax they pay has not been increased to cover this additional cost to the tax-payer (that's you and me). So the money that should have gone into the government purse via tax, has instead been removed from the national budget. That's a shortfall that will be made up by Mr and Mrs Joe average and the taxes we have to pay.

So why do it this way? "Because money". Companies don't want to pay more than they have to and the government has given them an "out", a way to avoid to compensation that they are morally due to pay.

This has put the profits in the companies pockets and the costs on the government (the tax paid by you and me).

The government has sought this method to shore-up big oil companies who are in a dying business. Oil prices are dropping as we move towards renewables, the cost of gathering that oil is rising (fracking isn't cheap) and the cost of doing business is being piled on the backs of the tax payer, while the businesses make out like bandits.

Stop funding dirty energy on the tax-payers pound.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37000975

Money talks when you give Cameron a medal.

The UN listed in the appendix of their annual 2015 report on children and armed conflict, under “parties that kill or maim children,” and “parties that engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals.” the Saudi led coalition in Yemen.

According to the report, at least 785 children were killed and 1,168 injured in Yemen last year alone, 60 percent by coalition airstrikes. The report documents dozens of coalition attacks against Yemeni schools and hospitals.

Then 72 hours later they were removed from the appendix, not because its untrue, but because its Saudi, and money talks. Oh and they are running  Human Rights over at the UN...

Still, David Cameron got his medal from the Saudi king, so that makes it all right.

Boaty McBoatface

Alas there will be no Boaty McBoatface.

A real shame. They've chosen another name that I'm sure is traditional as shit, but none the less not the name that the public voted for and a name that no one will give a damn about.

it could have become a meme, a persistent and interesting theme with its own fans, it's own web site, it's own merch - which might have supported the work it's due to do.

Now, everyone will forget everything about this ship except the hate.

The Shakespear rant.

Shakespear. Sigh. It's not even English. Even though you say it's relevant it's not. Even though you say it's great, it's really not, it's mediocre at best. Most of the plays are a confused mess to modern sensibilities. Most of the subtleties are missed by modern ears. It's cultural noise that the academics of today claim is a masterpiece because they know everyone around them who hasn't wasted time studying it is simply "not as good as them". Just geeks laughing at the muggles.

Yeah, it rhymes, so does every song lyric. Yeah, perhaps it's clever, but so are most rap lyrics. Yeah, it was a hit in its day, but you know what, no-one watches silent movies anymore, and no one cares about your Shakespear, except wannabees and people who have wasted their lives. It's not relevant it's ancient history and the stories were stolen from other playwrights, what more need be said. Except perhaps...shut up.

George Osborne lying AGAIN

The UK government have produced a report claiming that leaving the EU would cost the average household £4300.

Bollocks, and here's why you shouldn't believe that propaganda.

They have already told us that they wish to stay in, and that means that anything they say should be viewed with discern.

Also, remember this is the same government that lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, constantly lies about Syria, cant get the NHS right, doesn't plan properly for population growth and generally gets everything wrong.

Now consider this.Cameron declared that he is not on the fence about this issue. That kind of suggests that he has an iron in the fire doesn't it, he should be on the fence, he should be willing to do the public's will, that's the "supposed" purpose of democracy. Well, it is, unless your him, when it's about making money and gaining power rather than doing what the people want.

Don't believe his scare-tactics bullshit.  If there was this kind of cost to the UK overall, guess what(!) he could save more than that by staying the fuck out of foreign wars we shouldn't be waging in the first place.  But will he? Will he keep taking from the poor to fund the already rich and make war, all while pumping money into the EU?

"That's a conspiracy theory"

We have a cultural problem in the west. We have been blindfolded and lulled into thinking that actual conspiracy theories do not exist. Even the term "conspiracy theory" is used to indicate that something is silly and shouldn't be considered. Politicians and media use the term like this all the time.

Consider the murder of JFK, it's like the term "conspiracy theory" was made to suit that event. Anyone suggesting an alternative to the official story is considered a "conspiracy theorist". When this term is applied to them, we as a culture discount their suggestion because of the label, often without even the barest consideration of what they are saying.

This attitude winds me up. I've heard people say that these theories are nonsense because no one could keep secrets that well or for that long, that too many people know the truth. This is based on a misconception. It assumes there is always a massive head count around these things and genuine, realistic theories that differ from the official accounts require massive complicity from hordes of people.

Bollocks.

Consider this. I think everyone remembers the debacle that was the WMD threat posed by Sadam in the 90s. Did this require a massive head count to fabricate the report that sent us to war? No, it didn't. All it required was the political will and power of one or more people. When Tony "Warmonger" Blair demanded a report he could show to parliament, he only had to pose the request that he wanted a "worst-case-scenario". That does not mean he had two hundred people secretly working on the project. He only had to pose his question in a certain way, and ANYONE who wanted to keep their job had to give him what he wanted. Not a lot of people keeping secrets here, everything in the open and yet the "theory" was right. Even if you disagree with my opinion on B.S. nature of the reasons for that war, my point remains pertinent. It did not require hundreds of people to work secretly and keep mum. It was all done in the open, but for the wrong (secret) reason.

What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It could easily have been deliberate. All it would take would be one guy at the top to manufacture the effect. The captain of the ship says "fire back", the crew obeys orders. The truth about who shot first does not matter to most people on the ship, they're just following orders. They trust and believe in the chain of command. If the captain says they were fired on first they naturally believe it.  Again, whether you believe this was a "conspiracy" or not, the point is that only one or maybe two people would need to know. You do not have to bring the whole ship into the secret.

Having now made the point that a "conspiracy theory" does not have to involve hundreds of people keeping a secret, ponder this...it has been done, lots of times. Big secrets kept by lots of people. All of the following were secrets kept by many people for a long time that were mere "conspiracy theories" until proved to be true.

The Manhattan Project
Bletchley Park.
The poisoned water in Flint
The tobacco industry covering up the cancerous and addictive facts about cigarettes
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Project MK-ULTA
The Nayirah testimony
The police cover up of Hillsborough
Poisoning of alcohol during the US prohibition
The asbestos cover-up
The NSA is tapping your phones
...and don't even get me started on the US/UK selling arms to both sides in the middle east conflicts.

So to my main point. Do not dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand. Look for facts. Do not assume that every official is looking out for the betterment of mankind, as too often they are only looking out for themselves, and the next paycheck.

"It builds character"

It flushes me with rage when anyone uses the phrase "it builds character" when defending the heinous crimes that take place within the school system.

In this case is mandatory rugby from age 11. When confronted by common sense, such as doctors calling for a ban on the contact side of rugby, because children end up crippled or mauled for life, the response is "it builds character". Correction. It either builds character or causes life long injuries. Sure you can build team spirit and the will to win with non-contact rugby but apparently you need life long injuries "to build character". Bullshit I say.

It's a meaningless response from those with no alternative answer. It's a stock response from those who can't conceive of change.

Consider this. Mandatory rugby. Mandatory. In what other aspect of life would you put up with mandatory contact sports? If you boss came to you and demanded you play for the company team, you'd tell him to get lost. But no, not at school apparently.

Let's consider how this rugby builds character. The spindly, fat, or small kids get ridiculed and physically pounded. That doesn't sound like "building" it sounds like crippling, both physical and mental). The larger sportier kids learn to beat on the smaller, weaker, and slower. Well, that character, but not one I'd recommend.

End the mandatory, it's evil.

 

BBC article that "builds character"