I received an email telling me about the government's latest plan to suppress children and families.  I got mad and went to the government's pettition site and started to create a pettition of my own. The purpose? Get out of office. Just go. Now. I completed the first part of the five step process and was asked for a short name for the pettition I was creating. I wrote "Get out". I was then given the line that appears as title of this post. It cracked me up so I thought I'd post here about it.

I stared in disbelief last night as right there in front of me on the BBC's Question Time we were subjected to the sight of Jack Straw still in office. I don't think he did well for himself claiming to be a member of a party of principles since none of the principles have pointed out to him that the only possible honourable act for any member of his party would be to resign forthwith.

Even compared to the fairly bonkers Nick Griffin he came off the loser. The hand in your pocket will never belong to Nick Griffin.

I know quite a few who aren't so bad. But Duncan Bannatyne isn't one of them.

If we define fascism as the political class wants us to understand it (the mass murder of millions of jews or a similar policy intention) then it would not be possible for later generations than those who lived or died in WW2 to "learn the lessons of history". For this was not Hitler's stated intention prior to being elected. It was not the case that the German people put him in power to murder the jews. He adopted the policy of facism after reading Musolini's book on the subject and he was a fascist from the start.

Fascism is a branch of socialism. Where the socialists took over the ownership of the means of production the fascists took over control of the means of production. The effect is the same only the name of the shop is different. There is nationalisation in both cases. The stated aim is to make the country "Great".

Today in the UK the power elite are not satisfied with regulating every aspect of business. They want to nationalise the people too.

Both Musolini and Hitler held that the individual should live for the state and that sacrificing the individual for the "good of all" was a legitimate policy. And so when Duncan Banatyne says "This isn't nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people's personal freedoms – it's the right thing to do to protect the health of the vast majority of us who don't smoke from the declining minority who do" he is speaking from a tradition with some history.

And his statement begs the question what would he consider "nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people's (sic) personal freedoms"?

I caught the last part of a report on BBC Radio 4 tonight that "explored" the reasons why Obama isn't getting the love they think he deserves.

Apparently there have been some deomonstrations and anger at Mr Obama.

How can this be? What is there about Mr Change not to like?

There was no mention of his continuation of Bush policy with regard to;

the prisoners still held in Cuba,

the war still going on in Afghanistan,

the continuing occupation of Iraq,

the bailing out of failing businesses,

the unimaginable amount of debt,

the increasing unemployment,

his plans to increase the state's involvement in healthcare,

etc.

No the last line of the report went something like this. In a country where race relations have been bad from the civil war to the civil rights movement it is unreasonable to believe race hatred would have gone away.

In other words don't listen (and we won't report anyway) to those on "the right" as they are just racist bigots.

Our own MPs haven't been getting much respect lately either.

The BBC needs to work a lot harder. Respect and trust of the "right honourables" just isn't what it used to be.

Having a half hour to kill before an appointment last night I chose to listen to BBC Radio 4's "The Moral Maze". Like most BBC programming this starts from the premise that we need the state to do something about something. The usual manipulative words were duly rolled out. "We" (the state) should be "concerned" (look for an opportunity to regulate) about something that "researchers" (taxpayer funded state action apologists) are "concerned about" (this should justify even more taxpayer funded research).

This particular episode was concerned with the "role of censorship". The usual arguments were trotted out and I guess the idea was to demonstrate with some of the BBC's most highly regarded intellectuals what a tough job the political class has with the intellectual shakings and stirrings involved in coming up with appropriate regulations. They showed that some people disapprove of pornography and violence in films and that others enjoy it or don't consider it to be harmeful. Others do consider it harmful and in fact dangerous. Oh what to do. What to do.

Of course the elephant in the room on the radio was the unquestioned assumption that "we" (the state) must do something about it. Now if this had been a conversation amongst free people who were not looking to impose their conclusions, should they come to any, on the rest of the population by threat of violence there could have been just as wide a range of opinions on the rightness and wrongness of the various issues and they could have each respected the others and gone with their own freely arrived at strategies of persuading other people about the virtues of their particular view of things. No need for a moral maze at all.

I have a great subject for them to debate though. How about "Why shouldn't the public be allowed to pay the BBC whatever they think it is worth?"

The first part of this video is a bit of truth slipping on to the air from Ron Paul. The amusing bit is what happens when CNBC cuts back to the studio.

In an amazingly up-front speech Gordon Brown confirmed much of what I said a few weeks ago in my predictions.

It will be a lot of fun celebrating his demise along with his party in the not too distant future. Unfortunately we'll then have the Tories to put up with.

It wasn't that many years ago that I believed the b/s about the integrity of the BBC and how it is respected around the world.

Here are a couple of facts. The presidential nomination candidates released their campaign funding figures a couple of days ago. Ron  Paul raised more money than any other Republican candidate in the last quarter of 2007 to which the report relates with $19.5 million. The figure is more than twice that raised by any other Republican candidate from their own grass roots support. Does that tell you he is lacking support?

The BBC reports this here.

Ron Paul is under a media blackout and it even reaches that bastion of integrity our beloved BBC.

Let's pretend the BBC isn't aware of the media blackout. Don't you think that someone there would see there is a story in this? How come Ron Paul has so much popular support and yet this isn't being translated into votes?

But then they give it away right at the end of the piece. The text of the article ends with "Whether he can make more of an impact at the polls remains to be seen." This is followed by a diagram that graphically allows us to compare the remaining candidates and guess what? Ron Paul isn't included.

This low-life's name is Allan Sharpe and he operates in Northants. From the Northants Evening Telegraph;

East Northamptonshire smoking enforcement officer Allan Sharpe was given a police escort as he spent yesterday afternoon on patrol at pubs in the east of the county.

I'd say he got the reception he deserved. Let's give every one we see the same kind of treatment and if you can get a picture let me know and I will post it here.