Reverse racism - again!

"White men could be legally blocked from getting jobs under new anti-discrimination laws being considered by Labour.
Employers would be able to give jobs to women or ethnic minority candidates in preference to other applicants, under the plans unveiled by equalities minister Harriet Harman.
If two candidates were equally qualified for a position, employers would be able to reject the white person or the man in favour of a black person or a woman".

When will the awful politicians like dear Harriet realise the sheer resentment and embitterment that they engender with legislation of this type? - I suspect that they do realise but do not care. Blinkered idealism with the unintended consequence of hardening attitudes against racial minorities.

LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=536050&in_page_id=1770

Children without a childhood.

I shall not dwell on the details - they really are too gut-wrenching - but suffice it to say that the 2 young girls, currently in the headlines, one killed and one abused, came from truly dreadful home backgrounds.
You perhaps know where I shall inevitably and sadly, point the finger of blame.
Inevitably, it is the liberal left who are largely responsible.
Building on the foundations laid by the Christian working classes and the 'deserving poor' in Victoria's reign, society went into a social incline, getting better year on year with only war and the world 'slump' to interrupt the progress. It continued into the 60s when all of this flattened out and as the hedonistic 60s generation became parents themselves, this social bettering went into decline.
Parenting has become poor; society has become non-judgemental and the moral and Christian base has been replaced with an ersatz version.
In the first 60% of the 20th Century, illegitamacy received opprobium within your own neighbourhood as did wilful unemployment, crime and social parasitism.
It was most unfortunate for the children to be judged for the 'sins of the absentee fathers' but young women knew that responsibility was expected from them and that there was a social price to pay for letting their standards fall.
As we have entered this liberal left, 'brave new world', irony kicks in. So many children have lost the name-calling with this to be replaced by appalling parenting and home backgrounds which 'you would not wish on a chimp'.

The Passion.

After the first episode of BBC's 'The Passion' - the jury is still out.


How it is possible to show a solid hour in the life of The Saviour and NOT portray a single miracle is frankly, quite puzzling.



It can be argued however, that healings, for example, are not especially well represented in the Gospels during the run up to Good Friday but that did not stop the makers covering other matters which had preceded the final days.



Will this production 'bottle it' when it comes to the Resurrection? - I do hope not as there has been much to recommend it.

Clegg cannot be taken seriously at all.

In the New Statesman, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg notes that:

"The elitist, Establishment view is this: the people (bless their cotton socks) are misguided, and should be ignored...the old, exclusive politics, with power and influence sewn up between a few chums at Westminster, is doomed." He argues it is time to listen to the people and, "build something new."

Ladies and gentlemen. This will, for all of future time, be recognised as the most perfect possible example of :

a] Irony. b] Delusion. c] A self-serving but meaningless soundbite d] Any combination of the first three?

Nigel Farage: a politician on OUR side.

If you only check up on one link this year, THIS is the one! PLEASE!
[Sound required!]


LINK: http://www.eursoc. com:80/news/ fullstory. php/aid/2347

Mike Riddle on 'Logic and the evolutionist'.

20 Logic errors used by evolutionists when discussing origins

1. Fuzzy Words
We believe, we think.
Given enough time, it will happen
Might work .
Must have formed “Those life forms must have evolved in the absence of oxygen,…”
Could possibly have been.
My guess is.
Seems like Use of “fuzzy words” demonstrates that evolutionists do not have the evidence to support their claims.
2. Half Truth
Half true and half false.
Often more effective than the complete lie Example: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it is not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system .
3. Bandwagon The appeal to “everyone agrees”. Example: All scientists accept evolution. No real scientist accepts creation. To see a list of scientists that believe in a literal 6-day creation got to: www.AnswersInGenesis.org
4. Glittering Generalities A broad oversimplification of an explanation. Example: Scientists may disagree about the mechanism of evolution, but all agree that evolution is a fact.
5. Loaded Words Using emotionally-charged words to influence a reaction. Example: Creationism is a tactic by the “Christian right” to force their religious agenda on our children
6. Association Associating something you want to criticize with something people dislike. Example: Associating creation in the same sentence with astrology or known myths
7. Ridicule Attempting to provoke a dislike against a person or idea by name-calling. Example: Creationists are troglodytes and flat-earthers
8. Assumptions Assuming physical evidences are related. Example: We are here therefore we must have evolved (this is often the best evidence used to support evolution) Example: Fossil horses arranged into an evolutionary sequence
9. Either-Or Fallacy Presenting only one possible solution when others are justified. Example: If we teach creation then we will have to teach every other creation myth.
10. Analogy Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences. Example: Evolution is a fact like digestion or gravity.
11. Authority Relying on authority rather than logic and evidence. Example: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”Example: Citing one scholar who claims the days of Genesis could have been long ages .
12. Extrapolation Assuming a trend beyond what the data permitsExample: Radioactive dating methods prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Example: Mutations are the mechanism for evolution .
13. Best-in-Field Fallacy An appeal to overlook discrepancies in a theory. Example: We don’t have all the answers, but evolution is the best model we have.
14. Shifting the Burden of Proof Forgetting that it is your responsibility to prove a claim, not your opponents to disprove it. Example: Claiming that creation has no proof and therefore should not be taught, when evolution has never been proven or is even capable of proof .
15. Ad Hominem Attacking the person instead of the argument. Example: Asserting that creationists are ultra-conservative, do not have real degrees, or are liars. Example: Accusing creationists of quoting out of context when they did not.
16. Equivocation Confusing the issue by using vague terms or changing the definitions of words. Example: Changing the definition of science to support only evolution. Example: Not clearly defining terms such as natural selection or macroevolution.
17. Card Stacking Listing all the points in your favour while ignoring the serious points against it. Example: Pouncing on one item by your opponent but ignoring the major points of his/her argument. Example: Trying to prove evolution using finch beaks or antibiotic resistant bacteria but ignoring all the problems.
18. Bluffing Appearing to know more than you do. Example: Making the claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils. Example: Dinosaurs evolved into birds
19. Appeasement The appeal that we're not really so different. Example: Most religions don’t have a problem with evolution.
20. Visualization Using imagery to mislead or to substitute for evidence. Example: The evolutionary tree of life. Example: The geologic column. Example: Reconstruction of alleged “apemen” .

Congratulations if you can spot the very few evolutionary arguments - particularly against scientific creationism - to which these 20 points do NOT apply. Good hunting!

Divisions increase.

Dr Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney, will not attend the Lambeth Conference, although he and the Most Revd Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, will be at the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) to be held in Jerusalem in the lead-up to the Lambeth Conference.

I am afraid that this symbolises the deep - and probably unhealable - divisions which now exist in the Anglican Communion.

The issue of how the Chuch deals with the issue of homosexuality remains the main point.

If all churches simply kept to the Gospel, they would be able to speak with a united voice.

To reject homosexual practice is not to reject the homosexual.

The principle is, as always, 'Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Lines in sand.

In the last few days I have found myself forced to think a little more deeply than usual and reconsider the issue of 'line-drawing'.


To what extent do I believe in libertarian principles?



Well, I have never been an out and out libertarian - that simply could never sit easily with my faith, although as a democrat, I must respect the rights of others to express opinions with which I do not agree.



Perhaps a return to Thomas Jefferson can lend some perspective:





"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but to inform their discretion."





Does this help in deciding where lines must be drawn? What are the cut-off points and perhaps more to that point, where are they?



It may well be that there is no absolute here; no single authority of Man to which we may turn. Perhaps every case and situation should be judged on its individual merits - or lack of them.
The traditional appeal to the wisdom of the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' may aid us in the thinking - certainly Jefferson wanted to trust the people.
Can we perhaps ask then: "What would be the opinion of any reasonable, thinking person with no political axe to grind?"

Does that help when democracy asks, nay demands, that we should accept the unthinkable in the views of others although only unusually in their implementation?


To what extent can the state draw a line to protect its citizenry and avoid becoming the appalling 'nanny state' which debilitates us today? - The thing is, that if that 'bloke in Clapham' is truly representative - he would most assuredly know.


That there be debate on libertarian grounds on the removal of all laws constricting ownership of firearms, for one example, is surely valid. Nonetheless, I feel that no political party could ever embrace such like as a policy which would be electoral suicide - certainly that is how they would perceive it.


But, what if my perception of public opinion on this is a wrong one? - Surely then, such matters must be submitted to referenda in the Swiss fashion in order to hear the true voice of the people.


What about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? Where does that fit the pattern?

"Democracy is about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Andreas Pizsa.


Where and when might it be proper for a government to rule out the will of the people?
Think of the countless occasions where government in the UK has applied its own moral values and has told the people what it is going to get, knowing full well that it is not what the people want.


Oh dear. My head hurts.

Here's a paragraph from Bernays' Propaganda:

"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."

I do not know about you, but I find this extremely worrying.

Phew!

This Blog is now 1,001 articles old. Please check back or use the search engine to find items of interest.





The readership has doubled in recent months. Please help it double again by sending the details to anybody you know who might appreciate my slant which tries to inform across a wide range of Christian and anti-PC issues.





Many thanks! [I do hope that my barking is not utterly pointless.]





http://christianityisnotleftwing.blogspot.com/

Ed Balls.

I am usually confident of being able to explain my ideas fully and in a way to make myself understood.
Sometimes you just have to step aside and allow that somebody else can do the job better.
In the link below, Peter Oborne explains magnificently the horrors which make Ed Balls such a terrible example of the narrow-minded, liberal left; their thought processes and the veritable dangers which attend them.
We must ask just how typical Mr Balls actually is.
One look at the cabinet probably reveals the answer.


LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=534234&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382&in_check=N

Secondary Moderns.

When I was on my first teaching practice in 1974 at what was indubitably the worst school in Rotherham, and possibly the whole of South Yorkshire, I recall an interesting conversation with a teacher who had been there both when it had been a sound secondary modern and later, the atrocious comprehensive I remember today with such horror.
This school actually achieved significantly poorer results as a comprehensive than it ever had done as a secondary modern!
[This dreadful sink school, serving a working class area, became so poor that Rotherham L.E.A. eventually had to close it down.]
If you take into account that as a comp, it had kept the top 20% or so which it had never previously seen, this diminution of standards is little short of amazing and yet, was not all that untypical.
This scenario came about because the 'dumbing down effect' had kicked in to the detriment of the more intelligent pupils who then simply sank into the mass of unmotivated mediocrity.
Work, which had been the norm in a grammar school, could be a cause for victimisation in the comprehensive.
Tellingly, there was another great loss for those pupils who had formerly been the 'top dogs' in a secondary modern. According to my informant, these pupils had constantly been motivated by saying "You are not going to let those grammar school kids do better than you - are you?"
These same children saw that motivation removed and inspiration destroyed.

Mission Statement.

"The Conservative Christian Fellowship contributes to the life and thinking of the Conservative Party and inspires its members to make a radical difference, where they are."

I can find no fault with that - but it looks as if all is not going too well at the moment at Westminster, doesn't it?
Please pray for the success of this group and that 'liberal christianity' does not stick its unwanted nose into what they are seemingly trying to achieve.

Watertown.

Watertown New York, has just had a fortnight's snow.

146 inches to be precise.

Does it make YOU wonder if the 'global warmists' ever see things like this and suffer doubts?

NUT.

" Military recruitment in schools should be banned as it exposes pupils to pro-war propaganda, teachers say.
Left-wingers in the National Union of Teachers are attempting to galvanise a campaign to stop recruitment visits."

In the same week that the press tell us about abuse of the military by the sick-minded in Peterborough; my own son, with two of his TA companions, is nearly run off the road by a bitter, gesticulating asian man in Sheffield; then we have to witness this unedifying campaign by some people who - please NEVER forget - are entrusted with the education of our children and who will, on occasions, may well benefit from this country having armed forces.

Regular readers of this Blog will be more than aware of my attitudes to this country fighting in conflicts which do not concern us but I still take an immense pride in our grossly underfunded armed forces.

When I was Head of Careers in a large comprehensive, I have personally arranged many such talks and visits.

Do these idiots seriously believe that we can actually do without a military? Do they believe children should be denied the chance to be informed? Do they believe perhaps that pupils must be actively DIScouraged from 'joining up'?

I can assure you that NEVER have I witnessed a single item of 'pro-war propaganda' unless showing military equipment counts.

My scorn for the left really does know no bounds! How do they think? What is the matter with them? Does the expression 'living in the real world' just not apply?

It has been said that the devil's greatest success is to get people to believe that he doesn't exist.

The greatest success of the left is surely to have got people viewing them as well-meaning, well-intentioned, 'cuddly', led-by-a-warm-heart even though maybe 'a tad loopy'.

THIS IS FALSE. The hard left are just as dangerous as the hard right - they have killed more people!

The more ordinary left are sinister and dangerous in pretty much equal measure

LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=533428&in_page_id=1770

Failing - ever more expensively.

Labour has doubled health spending to £100 billion pounds annually. This has been so ineffectively spent, that our health system is plummeting behind those of more efficient W. European countries, namely: France, Germany and, new kid on the block, the Netherlands.
Our system is sinking under the weight of massive bureaucracy and absurd 'targets'.
Were you aware that our NHS is the third largest employer in the world?

LINKS: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/index.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=531028&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Ban council prayer?

If anybody ever needed prayers, then surely it has to be politicians but ...

'Town councillors in Bideford, North Devon, have been told that their prayers could fall foul of the Race Relations Act.
They have also been warned that they might attract an action under the Human Rights Act.
Many councillors are outraged by the advice from the National Association of Local Councils and claim it is yet another attempt to remove Christian traditions from public life.
Prayers have been said at Bideford council meetings since the town was awarded a charter by Queen Elizabeth in 1573.'

I despair.

LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=532271&in_page_id=1770

The great petrol scam.

I calculate my average bill for petrol as being just £668 as my mileage annually is very low and I drive a car with a fairly efficient engine.
Of that amount, £318 is petrol duty and £99 is VAT - which is of course, taxing me on top of taxation already paid - clever but sickening!
The actual cost of my fuel is just £251.
Next time you complain about the oil companies, remember that the cost of a litre of petrol is actually around 37 pence.This figure represents research, production, refining, transport and filling station profits.Oil company profits are therefore only a fraction of this 37 pence. It is only the sheer volume of trade which enables them to put smiles on shareholders' faces.
So, as near as makes no difference, two thirds of what I pay goes to the government and one third to the producers.
Remember that whenever the oil company ups the price by one penny at the pumps - the government is upping it by a further two. Ohh, thanks Mr Darling for not adding the planned extra 2p a litre on top - well postponing it and getting us later, anyway!


One really positive thing about this iniquitous level of taxation on fuel is that it will mean that fewer poor people can afford to run a car and surely that is what should be our oh-so-green target!

Passports are stealth taxation.

Once you are an adult and have a passport, why should it ever need to be renewed? I grant you that the photo may need occasional upgrading, personal details updating and a confirmation that you are still alive might also be useful but why all the absurd form-filling and bureaucratic nonsense?
Had you just got so used to the idea and not recognised that this is all totally unnecessary?
Cunning Gordon Brown for latching onto our weakness and quadrupling the cost. Quadrupled? -
Don't you mean doubled?
No. The price has doubled and it is now a requirement to renew every five years, not ten - so - doubled again! This also means a wholesale waste of your time twice as often!

Bureaucracy brings in tax revenue. Every single tax increase - by stealth or otherwise - adds to the government takeover of the lives of citizens; adds to the power of politicians; reduces our control in our own lives and will be used to create greater state dependency which is the ultimate goal of all leftwing administrations.

*** LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=543128&in_page_id=1770

'Dave' has another winner.

" **** off you **** , who the **** do you think you ****ing are?"

I just thought that I would let my readership have a little advance practice of what delicate responses are going to kick in as soon as we all heed the absurd 'Dave' Cameron call to 'tell off other people's children'.

[Incidentally, do you have good health insurance? Does your house insurance cover wanton acts of vandalism?]

OECD reveals the truth.

OECD figures indicate that middle-class families are paying an extra £1,250 a year after suffering the sharpest rise in their tax bill of any leading Western country over the past five years.
Married couples in Britain are being hammered by some of the biggest tax rises in the developed world, their report will say today.
A husband and wife with two children who both work are typically handing over £1,777 more than five years ago.


This profligate government is completely responsible. You cannot tax those who have nothing and dare not tax the wealth producers, so your madcap schemes must be funded from those on PAYE and in the middle. The philosophy of this governent is that taxation MUST increase every year. If we got just a little back in improved services which we could actually see rather than have to await dodgy, government statistics to inform us that there have been dramatic improvements.......
Labour has reverted to type. They are not and have never been fiscally responsible.


I have a feeling that 'Mondeo Man' is now an ex-labour voter!

LINKS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/12/ntax112.xml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=531428&in_page_id=1770

Price rises.

A price comparison website shows how the government has consistently deceived us over inflation.
A typical 'food basket' has increased by 11% in the last year and staple foods have gone up - some by 30 times government inflation claims.
Inevitably, it is shoppers moving to 'own brands' which will have held that figure at the relatively low 11% - they have to save somewhere if butter, eggs, bread and milk all go through the roof.
Of course, the fact that certain luxury items such as 'jelly tellies' have come down in price as new technology always does, has been allowed to influence the heavily massaged inflation figures.


LINK: www.mySupermarket.co.uk