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"

David Cameron dislikes the welfare state.

The following text was taken from  a BBC news article. Text in bold was the article, non-bold text is my own thoughts on the issue. ( http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31464897 )

David Cameron has commissioned a health adviser to review whether people with obesity, alcohol or drug problems should have benefits cut if they refuse treatment to make them fit for work.


Translation : I believe that people in need, people who have no options or power should have their means for living and gaining any choice removed in order to make them powerless and less important.


About 100,000 people with such long-term, yet treatable, conditions are claiming sickness benefits.

Translation: People who have mental conditions that prevent them seeking aid, should pull themselves up by their own bootlaces!

Prof Dame Carol Black will consider whether the welfare system fails to encourage them to get treatment. 

Question: Is it the job of the welfare system to encourage people to seek treatment, or is that a fallacious argument? Surely it's the job of the welfare system to provide welfare.

The PM said it was unfair for workers to fund those who refuse such help.

Translation: The PM does not understand that is EXACTLY the point of the welfare system.

"Some have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment," Mr Cameron said.

Point: Yes that is true. That is part of the condition of addiction. Mr Cameron does not understand that addiction is ADDICTION. But at least he can sit back satisfied in being a selfish ass.

"In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed, but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.

"It is not fair to ask hardworking taxpayers to fund the benefits of people who refuse to accept the support and treatment that could help them get back to a life of work."

Translation: We should force people against their will to take "help" that we force on them regardless of their actual issues, cares or beliefs.

"In particular, I have asked her to consider whether people should face the threat of a reduction in benefits if they refuse to engage with a recommended treatment plan.

Question: "Recommended treatment plan"... does that include visiting a state mandated,  Quango to make money for your friends Mr Cameron?

"It is vital that people who would benefit from treatment get the medical help they need."


Point: Except of course getting to treatment is difficult when the state has withdrawn the funds you need to get to the treatment.

Currently there is no requirement for people with such health problems to undertake treatment.

Comment: Well done BBC. In other news, freedom of choice, requires people to have choice.

About 60% of the 2.5 million people claiming sickness benefits have been doing so for more than five years.

Thought: Errr. What is the point of this statement? Shock horror! People who are sick,....have been claiming they are sick!!! More than five years? Well, let's see, people who have lost a leg, do those grow back?  The purpose of this statement is to deliberately make sick people look and sound like leeches. That is it's entire purpose. It's a "scare" tactic, nothing more.

Dame Carol said: "I am deeply interested in trying to overcome the challenges these types of benefit claimants pose.

WTF: They pose you a challenge? Sick people, people in need, pose you a challenge. Do you mean they need help, or you want to find a way to take away what little happiness they have?

"These people, in addition to their long-term conditions and lifestyle issues, suffer the great disadvantage of not being engaged in the world of work, such an important feature of society."

Translation: As a society, we find people who are not good-little-robots a real pain in the ass and want them to feck off. In fact we want to remove the welfare state and funnel that money into our own pockets.

Evil policemen?

Evil. Consider that word. What do I mean by it? Evil. Anti-good?  Yeah, let's go with that. Arresting a man for feeding the homeless. Feeding those in want, seems like a "good" to me. So stopping him doing that is...evil.

How can a man, a policeman, arrest someone for feeding a person in real genuine want and need without doing an evil act?

If you're a policeman, and you're asked to do this, surely you ask yourself if what you're doing is right. Don't you?

If you're in the job to "enforce the law" without reference to any moral or ethical code, what makes you different to war criminals who were "just following orders". What is the difference?

There is no difference.

Even soldiers in a war zone have to consider ethical questions. A policeman must too, or he becomes quite literally evil.