Longrider

During the media’s beatification of Barry Obama, I wondered whether, like the peanut farmer before him, his patina would vanish all too rapidly and we would see him ejected by a disillusioned electorate after one dismal term at the helm. His electoral success was, I suspect in part, due to a lack of credible opposition combined with two successive Republican terms as much as by the colour of his skin. Ether way, his leftist politics didn’t strike me as something the US public would put up with for too long. Whatever the reason, he was sure to disappoint – not least because the pompous, self-righteous leftists positively tripped over themselves to be seen to kiss his arse. And don’t forget Obama beach (as if we could).

Looks like I may have been right.

In the face of withering Republican attacks – which has seen them promising to repeal almost everything Obama has done – the Democrats are facing sinking polls and staring disaster in the face in mid-term congressional elections in November There is little talk of celebrating Obama’s achievements and cementing his authority. Instead, it has become a grim battle for survival, with experts predicting a swath of Republican gains that will give them control of the House of Representatives and could even see them win back the Senate.

Poll after poll has contained unwanted news for Obama and the Democrats. A Fox poll showed that 41% of voters intended to use their vote to express opposition to Obama, compared to 33% who wanted to express support. A recent CBS poll had Obama’s approval rating at an all-time low of 44%. A Rasmussen poll showed Republicans enjoying a six-point lead over the Democrats.

I don’t, as a general rule, follow US politics, but I might be making an exception here. This bun-fight has all the hallmarks of some right royal entertainment written all over it.

Andrew Gilligan opines on the recent problems encountered by Michael Gove.

In a Commons appearance of 28 minutes, Mr Gove used the word “apologise”, or variants thereof, 24 times, after repeatedly giving the wrong information about which school rebuilding projects are to be axed. At that stage, however, we were still only on the third correction to the minister’s list of schools. By the time that he was forced to issue his fifth corrected version, it seemed likely that something more than simple incompetence was afoot.

At the time my antennae twitched, as I suspected much the same. This had Humphrey Appleby style sabotage written all over it. Sure, I don’t rule out incompetence, but it was all just a little too convenient, given that this came from a quango facing the axe.

Ministers in the new government began by worrying about the Lib Dem back benches, the Tory back benches, the grassroots, the public. But the question some of them now ask is: are we being sabotaged by the Civil Service?

I’d say highly likely, as Gilligan points out later in the piece, the public sector mushroomed during Labour’s tenure:

To ministers, however, it is far from clear that the 18-fold growth of the Cabinet Office since 1997 has made Britain 18 times better governed.

It hasn’t, of course. What we have seen is a burgeoning state sector that thinks it knows best and is hardly likely to readily agree to having its wings clipped anytime soon. So the briefings, “incompetence” and leaks will be used to undermine any budget cuts.

Governments are elected and may be removed by their electors. Civil servants remain, unelected and to us, unaccountable. They are neither civil, nor servants.

Whitehall sincerely thinks that it is one of the best things about Britain. I have always believed that its self-regard is totally unjustified.

Absolutely.

Others have commented on Richard Murphy’s risible attempt to paint himself as a libertarian.

Dammit, if you use the real definition it is very clear I am a libertarian. I consider myself to be so – I genuinely want to provide the individual with the opportunity to make choice.

Once again, we have the socialist warping of words going on. Any casual observer is likely to choke on his cornflakes over such a massive lack of self-awareness.

Still, just for clarity, let’s look at what the dictionary says. As libertarian is an American word rather than a British one, I dug out my Thorndike Barnhart:

lib er tar i an n.
1 person who advocates liberty, especially in thought or conduct.
2 person who maintains doctrine of the freedom of the will.

Dictionary.com has an addition to this:

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Conduct includes free movement of people, money, services and goods, which is a core tenet of libertarian thought. Fairly conclusive, really. By these definitions, Murphy is, most definitely, not a libertarian, not even close, not within a parsec and a half; unless freedom suddenly became slavery, war became peace and authoritarianism became libertarianism while I was having my afternoon nap.

When these people try to twist the language to steal words, it is up to us to complain loudly, repeatedly and vigorously and deny them their use.

One final thought about the buffoon Murphy, just who does he think he is, providing people with choices? It is not his to provide, the patronising bastard.

So Siobhan O’Dowd decided to take down her Raoul Moat tribute page. Apparently, she regrets the whole thing. However, she still has a soft spot for the psychopathic monster.

I just I genuinely felt sorry for him because he asked for help but didn’t get it. He felt his whole life had been taken away from him. He was in jail and his girlfriend writes to him and says she is seeing someone else he had kids with her and was in love with her.

So shit happens. The “Dear John” letter isn’t exactly new. It may be a cruel way to announce a split, but it happens. Besides, given Moat’s history, she may have felt that a face to face encounter was potentially dangerous. A fear that was well founded as it turned out.

I genuinely felt sorry for him and am not the only person who did feel sorry for him either.

Which just goes to show how misguided some people can be.

The 21-year-old added: “I feel sorry for the families because it was an awful thing that he did.”

This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Innocent people were shot – and one killed – by a thug who was incapable of controlling himself, who thought that violence was an answer to his problems. We all have problems. We do not all take it out on others using violence. There is nothing to feel sorry for Raoul Moat over. He made his decisions and we judge him by them. He was a murderer and as such deserves no sympathy.

Miss O’Dowd directed some blame towards Moat’s former girlfriend, Sam Stobbart, 23, who told him her new boyfriend was a policeman.

“The lad who got shot, that was horrible but if she hadn’t have said he was a police officer it would not have happened,” she claimed. “Yes she was scared of him but she should not have written him a letter. Because of her that lad has lost his life really.”

No! No! No! Raoul Moat pulled the trigger. He made the decision, he carried out the act, he is entirely and solely responsible for the death. Sam Stobbart was not responsible; Moat was. Stop making excuses for the inexcusable.

Dick Puddlecote opines on Godwin in relation to the recent Jon Gaunt case. Frankly, Godwin is a pain in the arse and I have made my views on his “law” plain in the past.

Sometimes a reference to the Nazis is perfectly legitimate. However, when making it, there will always be some fatuous smartarse thinks he is clever by shouting “Godwin’s law!”

My response to this type of self-satisfied, smug fuckwittery is; “Oh do just fuck off, will you?” Godwin did no one any favours by giving the hard of thinking the Internet equivalent of an unguided intercontinental ballistic missile.

Jon Gaunt’s reference to Nazis was accurate and therefore valid. Drawing comparisons between Labour party policy on civil liberties and the Nazis is valid and accurate and Godwin can stick his “Law” where the sun don’t shine, frankly.

Facebook has decided to defy Cameron (ooer!) and keep the tribute page to Raoul Moat online.

The Prime Minister had earlier condemned those who had shown sympathy for the former nightclub doorman after he had shot three people – killing one of them.

Now, I agree with Cameron, just as I agree with AlJahom and Counting Cats. These tribute sites are a manifestation of rampant fuckwittery, emotional incontinence and supreme illiteracy. I agree that those who flock to pay tribute to a psychopathic murderer are pretty sick, frankly. I agree that Moat did the world a favour when he put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. I agree with them, and Cameron, that this man was neither hero nor legend, he was not just a misunderstood lad who was no angel but had been hard done by. He was a thug, a brutal, violent murderer and deserving of no sympathy whatsoever and he gets none from me.

However, there is an underlying point here; one that the Facebook people seem to have grasped and one that the unnamed conservative MP urging Cameron to get the site taken down seems not to…

Freedom of speech.

A good reason not to send someone to gaol:

Sentencing, Judge Newton told Voyce: “Frankly, you deserve to go to prison, but I can’t bring myself to send you to prison, entirely because I think prison would be an appalling experience for you.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I thought that was the point…

France is well on the way to imposing a ban on the veil; the niqab or the burqua.

France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

There were 335 votes for the bill and only one against in the 557-seat National Assembly.

It must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law.

The ban has strong public support but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil.

I despise Islam, wholeheartedly and completely. I do not accept the argument that fully veiled women is a necessary part of their religion. It is a cultural construct from the wahhabist Saudis. It is a way of pouring scorn on western civilisation, of being openly different and rejecting the values of the host culture. Quite apart, that is, from being an overt symbol of Islamic misogyny – a misogyny that is entrenched as much in the oppressed as the oppressors.

But… But… But… Since when did the state get to decide what people wear? Today the veil, tomorrow…? Much as I deplore Islam and everything it represents, people should have the freedom to wear whatever ridiculous clothing they wish, whether it is a marquee that hides their face or their trousers around their knees exposing their underpants. It is not the role of the state to decree dress codes.

This ban is likely to be challenged when it becomes law and, likely as not, the European court will decree that it is illegal.

After the vote, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said it was a victory for democracy and for French values.

No. What it shows us is that democracy is merely the thuggery of the majority used to crush any minority of which it disapproves. I share that disapproval, but it doesn’t make the ban right, because it isn’t.

Martha Lane Fox wants everyone to be online.

UK digital champion, Martha Lane Fox, wants to get everyone of working age online by 2012

The Networked Nation Manifesto, published today, also highlights the lack of net access “among the disadvantaged, unemployed and retired”.

David Cameron backed the campaign, saying that “digital inclusion is essential for a modern dynamic economy”.

There is a fly in the ointment, though.

However, the issue of who will pay for it all has yet to be addressed.

Quite. I pay my own bills. I see no reason why I should pay others’ bills.

The report outlines various strategies to get the UK population online, setting itself the challenge of getting “everyone of working age online by the end of this Parliament”.

However, despite all these “strategies” there is another fly in the ointment…

And one other problem – amongst those targeted by this mission, a stubborn minority continue to see few reasons why they should bother with the internet.

Indeed. I have at least five family members who feel this way. Don’t need it and don’t want it. Given this, they won’t pay for it, either, so Ms Lane Fox is going to miss her target. Why not just leave people alone to do their own thing?

As an aside, I note the use of language to describe these people as a stubborn minority. If you don’t go along with the latest edict, you are a stubborn minority, rather than someone who simply has no use for what is on offer and prefers to choose for themselves how they spend their own money and would prefer, on balance, for Tzars or champions to mind their own business; and for government to leave them alone to make their own lifestyle and purchasing choices.

I see that doctors are succumbing to the mulitculti bollocks and recommending that circumcisions be carried out on the NHS to avoid botched operations.

Senior doctors have called for male circumcision to be offered by the NHS amid fears that unregulated operations are leading to serious injuries among Muslim boys.

A number of public health specialists have urged the health service to overturn its ban on such operations after an investigation into circumcisions performed at an Islamic school in Oxford found that 13 out of 32 boys who had the procedure – at an average age of six – ended up with medical problems.

This follows the story a few weeks back that girls should have their genitals “nicked” in order to comply with their parents’ primitive, barbaric belief systems.

This is the worst kind of moral relativism. Circumcision for any reason other than health grounds when carried out on a child, who is too young to give informed consent, is abhorrent. Religious hokum is not an acceptable excuse. If an adult wants to undergo the operation in order to appease some bronze age mythology, then fine, you won’t hear a word from me. But an infant is unable to give informed consent, therefore the operation is a violation of their body. Mutilation – and let’s be clear here, that is what we are talking about – carried out in such circumstances is violence against that individual.

When faced with the moral dilemma of botched operations carried out by unqualified religious leaders, you do not enable the practice by offering to carry out the mutilation yourself. What you do is vigorously prosecute those responsible and you keep doing it and sending these bastards to gaol until they get the message – Britain is a civilised country and ritual child mutilation is illegal – at least, it damned well should be.

———————————————————

Update: Mummy is also unimpressed.

———————————————————

For those who are interested, I wrote a more detailed post on this subject back in 2005. There are some interesting links on the matter – in particular relating to the practice in the USA, based on the Victorian obsession with masturbation. The current practice in the USA is about as medically sound as eugenics.