Wednesday - January 07, 2009

Britons panic buying last stocks of conventional lightbulbs. Gweens win this round but ….

Damn Pinheads!

I’ve posted on this subject before but now here it is officially, it’s come to this. PANIC indeed.

There has to be a place or places where we can still buy the old reliable 100W bulb.  If there is, and I think there is, I’ll find it and really go to town.

We had been hoarding bulbs for awhile but about a month ago the shelves were empty.  We do have quite a few but, one can never, ever have enough of something that works well.

Well, here’s what gonna happen at least here in this house.  First, gonna buy a couple more lamps and start using TWO 60watt bulbs in place of the one 100watt, when we burn through all those 100s we’ve hoarded.  Or maybe use up the 60s first.  See, I really do not give a rats pa-toot how much energy we use or how big a footprint or how much carbon I leave behind.  I just do not buy into all that sky is falling crap and I HATE the idea that the EU can bring this crap home.

I would imagine things almost as bad in USA.  Is that right?  I mean hey ... with Obama taking office this month and his green desires as he has stated, how long before there’s a total federal ban in the US? 

Maybe there’ll be black market in light bulbs. Yeah, and an Al Capone type will supply same and there’ll be truck hi-jacking and shoot outs and .....

Hmmmm. Sometimes I get carried away.  Never mind.

Britons panic buying last stocks of conventional lightbulbs
Britons are panic buying the last remaining stocks of traditional lightbulbs after the Government agreed to plans to phase them out completely.

By Murray Wardrop
Last Updated: 1:19PM GMT 07 Jan 2009

The EU will impose a ban on sales of 100W bulbs from September.
Britain has signed up to an European Union decision to replace conventional 100-watt bulbs with supposedly greener, low-energy alternatives.
It means that the staple household item is vanishing from the high street after 120 years.

Leading supermarkets and DIY chains, including Sainsbury’s, Asda and Homebase, have already sold all their final stocks of the bulbs.
Other stores have reported that the only have enough to last until the end of next week.

Ministers claim that switching from old-fashioned lightbulbs to their newer fluorescent counterparts will reduce carbon dioxide by around five million tons each year.
However, fears have been raised over suggestions that low-energy bulbs can trigger skin rashes, migraines and epilepsy.

There is also concern because the fluorescent bulbs are generally more expensive and contain mercury, which makes disposal more dangerous.
An average supermarket price for a six pack of standard 60W pearl light bulbs is £1.21, but a single 60W low energy stick light bulb costs around £2.19.

Retailers stopped replenishing supplies of conventional incandescent 100W bulbs at the start of the year under a voluntary government scheme to force people to buy green compact fluorescent lights.
However, many shoppers have resorted to stockpiling supplies of traditional bulbs over worries about the quality of low energy alternatives and the fact that most of them do not work with dimmer switches.

Sainsbury’s said it had “virtually run out” of traditional 100W bulbs, while Homebase, John Lewis, and Asda confirmed they no longer had them on their shelves. Tesco, Britain’s biggest seller of bulbs, said it had enough for a few days.
The death of the conventional incandescent bulb was announced by Gordon Brown in 2007. The government wants people to switch to low energy compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) to help meet its climate change targets.

An energy efficient bulb uses a fifth of the energy of a conventional bulb and can save £7 a year in bills.

BULBS

WOO-HOO.  a WHOLE £7 a year. Well hell lets break out the champers and celebrate this great windfall. Maybe on the savings I can buy a flat pack Cadillac, Candy Apple Red please.  Ikea must sell that cheap. I’ll get Drew to put the damn thing together and then float it over here on the packing.

Posted by peiper     on 01/07/2009 at 11:05 AM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons • Government • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - January 03, 2009

The law of unintended consequences

Ever notice that every time the Government (whether local, State, or Federal) tries to solve a problem it just creates more problems?

Okay, so it’s Terry Pratchett. I still think it’s applicable.

Another interesting fact: this quote is in the footnotes of Soul Music. I’m sure Grumpy will appreciate this post.

[22] Rats had featured largely in the history of Ankh-Morpork. Shortly before the Patrician came to power there was a terrible plague of rats. The city council countered it by offering twenty pence for every rat tail. This did, for a week or two, reduce the number of rats –

Okay, we have the Government response to a problem. Now...on to the unintended consequence…

– and then people were suddenly queuing up with tails, the city treasury was being drained, and no-one seemed to be doing much work. And there still seemed to be a lot of rats around. Lord Vetinari had listened carefully while the problem was explained, and had solved the thing with one memorable phrase which said a lot about him, about the folly of bounty offers, and about the natural instinct of Ankh-Morporkians in any situation involving money: “Tax the rat farms.”

What the Government subsidizes, it gets more of!

Posted by Christopher     on 01/03/2009 at 11:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - December 28, 2008

Liberal, Conservative, what’s the difference?

Finally, somebody wrote a piece that succinctly defines the difference between liberal fascist moonbats and compassionate conservatives. He is Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker. He wrote, in part:

“This is the basic conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you can solve social problems with government programs. Conservatives believe that you must solve them person-to-person, face-to-face. Compassion means, literally, “suffering with.” Getting paid to run a government program to help the poor with tax dollars isn’t “suffering with.”

Exactly. This is the true ‘trickle down’ economics: government, be it local, state, or federal, rakes in billions through the threat of force, and ‘trickles down’ just enough to keep you breathing. Good times or bad, Government never seems to “suffer with” us at all.

I do my “charitable” works personally with people I know through various venues: family, church, work, neighborhood, etc. I don’t (usually) just send money off to some big, impersonal government ‘welfare’ organization (like United Way) so that they can skim a few hundred thousand off the top for themselves and ‘trickle down’ some pennies to those in need. That doesn’t count what those government ‘charities’ seize by force from my paycheck…

Go read the whole article entitled The Conservative Elevator Story.

I guess George W. Bush was right when he used the phrase ‘compassionate conservative’. I hated it because I thought it was redundant, but I couldn’t quite point out why I thought that.

Posted by Christopher     on 12/28/2008 at 07:37 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Government • Personal • Philosophy •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Government crackdown on offensive and harmful online activity to be launched in the New Year.

Well great. About time because, “it’s all for the kids.” Right?

Sure it is.  To start with.
But I have a worry here.  Please note he also would like to bring the office of the President (soon to be the O man) into this.
According to my reading, American sites could be involved.  Hey, the French already have Yahoo and Google restricted in some ways.
I just do not have a very trusting nature with regard to any govt. that talks about censorship. 

Having said all that, I do recognize there is a problem and there might be content online that’s totally off the wall and encourages behavior.
We know there are sites out there where those who are so inclined can find info on how to make explosives. Do we need that online?

I can’t pretend to have answers. Only questions. Bottom line?

I get nervous when officials with titles like “Culture Secretary” (Minister for public enlightenment and propaganda?) call for bans.  I’m never sure govts. know where the line gets drawn.

Internet sites could be given cinema-style age ratings as part of a Government crackdown on offensive and harmful online activity to be launched in the New Year, the Culture Secretary says.

By Robert Winnett,
Deputy Political Editor

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now.” It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

Mr Burnham also wants new industry-wide “take down times”. This means that if websites such as YouTube or Facebook are alerted to offensive or harmful content they will have to remove it within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

He also says that the Government is considering changing libel laws to give people access to cheap low-cost legal recourse if they are defamed online. The legal proposals are being drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.

Mr Burnham admits that his plans may be interpreted by some as “heavy-handed” but says the new standards drive is “utterly crucial”. Mr Burnham also believes that the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President-Elect, presents an opportunity to implement the major changes necessary for the web.

“The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause,” he says. “The more we seek international solutions to this stuff – the UK and the US working together – the more that an international norm will set an industry norm.”

THE REST OF THE STORY HERE

Posted by peiper     on 12/28/2008 at 11:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Government • International • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 17, 2008

good morning all comrades. todays order of business: Private schools told: open to poor or Close!

Today’s lesson for new comradeskys, commissars will take notes on those not paying attention.

“FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.”

Comrade Marx will give test.  Those failing will be re- schooled. Those unwilling will be shot. 

Have a nice day.

Private schools have been told to provide more free places to children from poor homes - even if they claim to be full - or effectively face closure.


By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 12:22AM GMT 17 Dec 2008

The new rules are designed to stop fee-paying schools being run exclusively for the wealthy.

Guidance published today by the Charity Commission also suggests schools could raise fees for existing parents as part of a “deliberate pricing strategy” to fund more places for deprived children.

The rules, which come into force next year, will be a blow to many independent schools as they battle the threat of falling pupil numbers prompted by the economic downturn.

Last night, experts said it may be the “final nail in the coffin” for some smaller schools.

Under Labour’s 2006 Charities Act, fee-paying schools are no longer automatically entitled to charitable status.

They must prove they provide “public benefit” to hang on to tax breaks worth an estimated £100m to the sector every year.

Schools have already warned they may have to increase class sizes or ask existing parents for more cash to satisfy the requirements.

Official guidance outlines how independent schools - along with charities for the poor, charitable hospitals and religious groups - can pass the new test.

It said they must do far more than offer “minimal or tokenistic” help for working class children.

In Scotland, four leading private schools have already been ordered to increase the amount spent on poor pupils or risk being stripped of charitable status.

The Charity Commission said it would intervene at schools struggling to meet the requirement in England and Wales to find “ways to fund free or subsidised access”.

It has the ultimate power to remove schools from the charities register - effectively closing them down and transferring assets to other charities - although officials insist this would be highly unlikely.

Sue Fieldman, of the Good Schools Guide, said: “This is not the Christmas present private schools wanted. It could not have come at a worse time. Many are already stretched financially as parents struggle to pay fees and it could be the final nail in the coffin, particularly for some small prep schools. I imagine the commission will be quite lenient to begin with but increase the pressure on schools when the economy picks up.”

Guidance, which has been toughened up compared to draft rules published in March, suggests schools can help pass the public benefit test by:

* Giving pupils from state schools free access to swimming pools, drama studies and concert halls

* Allowing them to sit in on certain classes not offered in the state sector

* Giving poor pupils coaching to boost their chances of getting into top universities

* Sponsoring one of the Government’s semi-independent academies

But the document makes it clear that providing more bursaries is the most likely way to satisfy the requirements.

It suggested schools should consider “increasing general fee levels in order to offer subsidies to those unable to pay the full cost”. Last year, the average private school charged £11,253.

(in dollars at that time it would have come to more then $22,000.)

The commission said the option was “certainly available” to owners, although it would not be feasible for every school.

Guidance said others may offer more places even if they are officially full. This will raise concerns among parents that small class sizes - seen as one of the main attractions of the fee-paying sector - may have to rise in some schools.

“It might be possible to offer additional places at a school in addition to the places for existing pupils,” said the document. “Even if there are legal and practical limitations on how many boarding pupils can be housed, additional day pupils might be easier to cater for and cost less.”

Schools were encouraged to drop academic scholarships - which can often go to bright children from wealthy homes - and divert cash to means-tested bursaries.

If schools cannot afford subsidies, the commission said they should consider embarking on fundraising drives or find “wealthy philanthropists”. Commissioners may step in to help schools raise money.

Commissioners are already investigating five schools as part of pilot tests. Other schools will be expected to file public benefit reports in their annual accounts from 2009, and officials may carry out random inspections.

The guidance makes clear schools will be judged on a case by case basis, although large schools with the highest fees will be expected to do the most.

It also rejects claims from many headmasters that they should pass the test simply by educating pupils who would otherwise be schooled at taxpayers’ expense.

“If the opportunity to benefit… is not genuine, or is meaningless or trivial, then it would count for very little in a public benefit assessment,” said the guidance.

More than 500,000 children attend 2,000 private schools in the UK. The majority were set up as charities, receiving benefits - principally in rate relief - of about £225 per child every year.

Last year, the number of pupils at independent school increased, but there are fears the economic downturn may push some families away. At least seven have closed this year citing the credit crunch.

Guidance effectively rules out the possibility that schools can relinquish charitable status or be sold to profit-making organisations to get around the rules.

Under charity law, any proceeds of a sale must be used for charitable purposes, it said.

Dame Suzi Leather, Charity Commission chairman, said: “Not only is it now a legal requirement for all charities to demonstrate how they benefit the public, but also our own research shows that the public expects charities to be clear about what they do and to be accountable and transparent at all times.”

The Independent Schools Council was outraged by draft guidance published earlier this year, insisting it was “heavily biased in favour of wealthier charities”.

David Lyscom, ISC chief executive, said it was studying the latest report before advising schools in the New Year.

SCHOOL DAZE

HELP, is needed here from someone who understands the school system here better then this foreigner posting the article.  Lyndon? Chris? Brits anywhere?

Why does a school charging £11,000 a head qualify to collect any monies from charities. Unless the money is specific to a person on say a scholarship or grant of some sort.  I know private schools here are what Americans call public, and public schools here are private.  ???

Man oh man.  I can see why you guys drive on the WRONG side. 
Get ready for “roundabouts” in the USA. Right. Nashville already has one or two. Anywhere else? 

Posted by peiper     on 12/17/2008 at 02:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Education • Government • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - December 13, 2008

here’s your prescription now turn in your guns

Doctors Eisen (dentist) and Gallant (optometrist) take a look at the next “reason” to disarm the public. For your own good of course.

In Nassau County, New York, a revised handgun application went into effect in January 2007. A new question asks: “Have you used or still use narcotics, tranquilizers or anti depressant [sic] medication? If YES, record doctor’s name, address and phone number, (attach).” If the applicant answers in the affirmative, a list of those medications is also required.

The new question may have been added as a means of increasing public safety, but Nassau County licensees have maintained a nearly spotless record in this area. A more likely explanation is that this could be the next practical step in denying exercise of the Second Amendment.
The recent Heller Supreme Court decision gave gun-owners a tripartite victory: firearm possession is an individual right, a complete ban on firearms is unconstitutional, and the right to self-defense with firearms is affirmed. The Supreme Court nevertheless left plenty of wiggle room for the firearm-prohibitionists, by allowing for “reasonable regulation.”

“Reasonable” is a very big word, and it opens the way to the eradication of our rights. If firearms can no longer be banned, then expanding the list of prohibited persons is the next tactic for firearm-hostile politicians to explore. That subjective factor of “reasonable” regulation could cast an extremely wide net.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that a history of legal drug use is a valid disqualifier of firearm ownership. According to the best criminological evidence, the most accurate predictor of violent behavior is a past history of violence.

The Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) acts as the county’s handgun licensing authority; licenses issued in Nassau County are valid for 5 years, after which time they must be renewed. If licensing authorities are allowed to determine that some drugs should be firearm “disqualifiers,” and others not, we will soon discover that there is no line between which drugs are dangerous, and which are not.

Use of anti-depressants has been linked to youngsters who have gone on high-profile, but rare, mass-shooting sprees. If these drugs can cause people to suddenly “snap,” it might seem reasonable to restrict legal possession of firearms to those taking such drugs as an effective strategy to prevent violent rampages. One point on which most researchers agree is that these incidents generally occur in a susceptible group of individuals under 25 years of age.

But because locks are easily disabled, in order to prevent any access to firearms by this class of individuals, or any other susceptible group, our society would need to tightly restrict the possession and storage of all weapons—exactly the goal of the firearm-prohibitionists.

If we allow fear mongering to replace good science and sound medical care, we can make the case that most drugs Americans commonly take could be used as firearm disqualifiers. That is because virtually all drugs—prescription and over-the-counter—have been associated with psychological and neurological adverse effects.

Nassau County NY is western and central Long Island, east of Queens. It costs $200 to apply for a pistol permit there, and another $99 to get fingerprinted, so there is already a bias against the poor inherent in the process. And the waiting time is 6 months, don’t call us, thank you. The permit is good for only 5 years, at which point it costs you $200 to renew it. And the list of questions asked on the form is onerous (and I’m saying that, living here in NJ!!) Not just “where do you work?” but “list every job you’ve had for the past 5 years.” 4 references, not 1 or 2. List next of kin. Who will get your guns when you die or become disabled? Were you given a dishonorable discharge from the military? Have you had a traffic ticket in the past 5 years? Have you ever been arrested? (not convicted, just arrested) Have you ever been fired from a job? Has any family member ever been in a mental institution? I bet this is the nastiest and most intrusive gun permit form in the country. Horry Clap. Even your character references get put through the wringer, threatened with a perjury charge, and then they have to have their form notarized. Oh, and do you own any guns too? But getting this permit isn’t enough! When 6 months have gone by and you have your permit, you then need to get a Purchase Document from the cops! One per gun thanks. Wonder how much they cost? And how often you’re allowed to get one? Or how long the cops take to process them?


At first read, and it’s a short article worth reading, I thought that perhaps Drs Eisen and Gallant were clutching at straws, and maybe trying to do some scare tactics of their own. But now that I’ve read through the Nassau County forms, I accept their premise fully. If there are any questions on this interrogation form about prescription drug use, they are there for one reason: to deny you the permit. This is out of control. And now they want to use what perfectly legal prescription drugs you take - or have ever taken!! - as a reason to deny you your constitutional rights. This isn’t moonbattery. It’s far beyond that. This is the sound of the hobnailed boots kicking in your door at 3am. This is government gone wild.

Heller was no where near a strong enough decision. The Nassau County form has been in use for 2 years now; Heller was only a couple of months ago. This form already is what the NY county feels is “reasonable regulation”, because it is possible that some people can put down the right questions, have the right folks speak up for them in the proper manner, have a past purer than the freshly fallen snow AND afford to pony up what is likely the highest gun application fee in the country. But God himself can’t help them if they take or have ever taken a certain kind of medicine. And you don’t have access to the list of proscribed prescribed drugs. So what’s on the list is what we want to be on the list. For the wrong kind of person. Mandatory urine and blood samples will be next. Pretty soon nobody will be able to buy a gun in Nassau County, but that’s Ok, because it’s all just “reasonable regulation”. Have to protect the public you know. [That’s what the cops are for, right? Well sure, until you actually demand that they do so. Then they’ll trot out the court cases that say they aren’t, after all. ]

Horry Clap. And I thought it was tough here in NJ.



Oh, and you did notice the citation at the top of this post? This article was first printed in this month’s Blue Press, the combination magazine and catalog put out by Dillon Precision. They make superb reloading presses. They also make the miniguns for our military. And for readers of Vilmar’s and Rodger’s blogs, they have the new calendars ready. The ones that feature the “gun babe” you were all drooling over the other day, Cathy Rankin. You can get both large format Dillon Calendars for only $16.95, and Cathy is on the cover of one of them.

UPDATE: So much for Equal Treatment Under The Law. Rockland County NY is about the same distance west of NYC as Nassau County is to the east of NYC. But in Rockland, a pistol permit costs $10. Plus fingerprinting fees. But the permit is good forever. And you only need 2 references, not 4. I guess they don’t have people from Brady running their show like Nassau does. In between these two counties is Westchester County, which is directly north of NYC. There a pistol permit costs the same $10, but you have to recertify ever 5 years. And they will give you free gun locks if you ask for them. No mention of fingerprinting or fingerprinting costs at the Westchester web page.

Posted by Drew458     on 12/13/2008 at 10:44 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control • Jack Booted Thugs •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 03, 2008

LETS HEAR IT FOR HILLARY, SEC.O.S.

Just HAD to post this today ... interesting read no matter what side of the fence you’re on.  My very I confess to all uneducated guess is she won’t last in that position.  While I might not approve of the pres.-elect and did not vote for him, it can’t be honestly said that he’s stupid.  I wonder, being cynical as I am, if maybe just maybe he approved her with the idea that she would fail at it.  Can not stand her either but again, she isn’t dumb .

This is gonna get very interesting after January. 

I haven’t seen this article in American press so I am assuming it’s for this market. 

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant choice for US Secretary of State

By Anne Applebaum
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/12/2008

When news first leaked that Hillary Clinton was Barack Obama’s top candidate for Secretary of State, I had the same reaction as just about everyone else: has he gone mad? To put Hillary in charge of American foreign policy seemed not merely an error, but also clear evidence that Obama’s reputation for good judgment, sober decision-making and impenetrable cool had been much overrated.

For reasons personal, political and practical, Hillary seemed absolutely the wrong choice: this is not a woman known for her diplomatic skills or any special ability to make peace.

She does have, on the other hand, an almost unique ability to provoke irrational hatred in the breasts of total strangers. Dramatic tension rises when she walks into the room. Fantastic stories trail in her wake. Some of these stories she merely inspires, others she invents - such as the ones which came up during the primary campaign, about how she “brought peace to Northern Ireland” or “arriving in Bosnia in a hail bullets”.

Hillary doesn’t exactly have a track record of loyalty to the new president-elect either. On the contrary, for most of the past year Hillary was not just Obama’s most serious Democratic rival, but she was also his most vicious opponent.

Most of the nastiest attacks on Obama in this past year were launched not by John McCain’s Republicans, but by Hillary’s Democrats. That Obama lacked experience; that he had a secret, fanatically radical past; that, being from Hawaii, he might not be “really” American; that being black, he would have trouble winning “white” states in the presidential election: all of those notions originated with Hillary or her surrogates. Sometimes, they started with her husband, Bill.

Bill Clinton was, and still is, a problem. As a former president, he has made a career out of giving extremely lucrative speeches, which he makes at meetings of all kinds of organisations in all kinds of countries.

That means, however, that he has taken money from all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas. Even if he stops taking this money tomorrow - and he has more or less promised that he will - the potential for conflicts of interest are immense. There are a lot of people out there who think they are going to be able to get to Hillary through Bill. There are also a lot of people who will think that, when Bill talks, he is speaking on behalf of the President of the United States of America.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Hillary herself doesn’t have nearly as strong a foreign policy record as her husband. As First Lady, she focused on domestic issues - health care, children’s rights. As Senator, she did work on some military issues and took a few important stands - among other things, supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example, though she doesn’t like to talk about that now.

Other than that, no one knows much about her views, whether of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Europe, or of Russia. Do they match those of her husband?

More important, do they match those of Obama, whatever those may be? And if not, will she - once his severest critic - be able to toe the line? In the American political system, the Secretary of State functions as a spokesman for the President abroad. But when Hillary talks, many will wonder if she is speaking on behalf of President Obama, or on behalf of herself, her husband, and the present and future interests of Clinton Inc.

HERE’S MORE ON THE SUBJECT

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2008 at 07:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Government • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 01, 2008

Welcome to Soviet Britain:where figures reveal that half the population relies on the state for jobs

I had wondered for awhile, why so many people seem to be voting Labor while also complaining about the turn England has taken.  Wife told me about this a very long time ago, but I didn’t really take it all in until I saw this in today’s Daily Mail.

Anyone know what the stats are for the USA?

I didn’t post the entire story here, don’t know how much interest you have in this. BUT ... I guess it answers the question some of you have asked, and I know LyndonB made mention as well, when asked how the Labor Party stays in office so long.  This could be a reason. But as Lyndon has also pointed out, it doesn’t let the conservatives off the hook because they haven’t been very encouraging either. 

Welcome to Soviet Britain: The Labour heartlands where figures reveal that half the population relies on the state for a job

By Andy Dolan
Last updated at 7:39 AM on 01st December 2008

Labour’s public sector spending has created a wave of ‘Soviet’ boroughs where around half the population depends on the state for work, figures revealed yesterday.

An analysis of council statistics showed that in ten areas more than 40 per cent of the workforce is employed in the public sector.

Many are deprived areas where the true dependency on the state will be far greater once benefit payments to those out of work are taken into account.
Castle Morpeth

All but two have Labour MPs - the others are Liberal Democrat.

Top of the list compiled by the Centre for Economics and Business Research is Castle Morpeth, Northumberland, where - in an echo of the Soviet system where everyone was employed by the state and therefore owed their loyalty to the communist party - 57.1 per cent of jobs are in the public sector.

Morpeth, a medieval market town in the heart of the borough, is one of the most desirable places to live in the North East, with surrounding villages home to Premier League footballers.

But the town is also the administrative centre of the borough council and Northumberland county council, which accounts for much of its state sector employment.

Even accounting for this, the public sector dominance in Morpeth is actually understated.

STATS AND MORE HERE

Posted by peiper     on 12/01/2008 at 07:26 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Government • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 26, 2008

BRITAIN INTRODUCES ID CARDS FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS.

FOREIGN NATIONAL ?  WELL, I GUESS THAT MEANS MESELF.

THIS WAS IN TONIGHT’S NEWSLETTER FROM OUR EMBASSY (AMERICAN).
OBOY!

Hey, these people do NOT have a very good track record keeping private what is meant to be kept private. 
For months now it’s one lost or stolen briefcase or laptop taken from govt. offices.  Very often people who work for the govt., which sometimes feels like half the population, are taking things from the office to bring home to work on.  But later find a case or a laptop has been left somewhere.

Really look forward to this.  Hey, it’s their country and if the Brits feel this is what’s needed then I have no argument nor do I have a right to any argument with em.  The problem tho is, as you’ll read, they think they will be able to control the illegals.  What the heck for?  Once they are here the Brits hardly deport any.  Even plane hijackers have NOT BEEN deported. 

Papers, Papers.  Papers Please.  You have papers? ID Card?

The first UK Identity Card was unveiled today by the Home Secretary.

Building on the Government’s commitment to begin issuing the first ID cards to foreign nationals from November 2008, the card’s design was revealed for the first time.

The new credit-card sized document will show the holder’s photograph, name, date of birth, nationality and immigration status. A secure electronic chip will also hold their biometric details, including fingerprints, and a digital facial image.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:

“Today shows we are delivering on our commitment to introduce the National Identity Scheme in order that we can enjoy its benefits as quickly as possible.

“ID cards will help protect against identity fraud, illegal working, reduce the use of multiple identities in organised crime and terrorism, crack down on those trying to abuse positions of trust and make it easier for people to prove they are who they say they are.

“ID cards for foreign nationals will replace old-fashioned paper documents, make it easier for employers and sponsors to check entitlement to work and study, and for the UK Border Agency to verify someone’s identity. This will provide identity protection to the many here legally who contribute to the prosperity of the UK, while helping prevent abuse.”
Compulsory identity cards for foreign nationals will kick start the National Identity Scheme, with the first applicants having to apply for cards from 25 November.

Within three years all foreign nationals applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK will be required to have a card, with around 90 per cent of foreign nationals in Britain covered by the scheme by 2014/15.

To ensure the benefits of the programme are felt from the start, the UK Border Agency will start with categories that have been targeted by those wanting to abuse our immigration system, including students and people seeking leave to remain on the basis of marriage.

The introduction of the first card supports the Government’s tough new Australian-style Points Based System for managed migration. To earn and retain their licence as a sponsor businesses and education providers must keep records of the migrants they have sponsored including, in time, a copy of a migrant’s identity card. Businesses found employing illegal workers face fines of up to £10,000 per person.

The introduction of cards for foreign nationals will be followed by the first ID cards for British citizens, targeting workers in sensitive roles and locations like airports from 2009. Then from 2010 ID cards will be available to young people who want them and from 2011/12 cards will be available to the general population.

The introduction of ID cards will provide a convenient and secure means to protect identity by locking it to one person using their fingerprints.

Tom Hadley, Director of External Relations of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), said:

“Recruitment professionals in the front-line of the UK labour market play an increasingly pivotal role in checking the identity, background and status of individual job seekers.

“Within this context measures to simplify the checking requirements can be welcomed and must be backed with an extensive communication programme. Recruiters take their responsibilities to verify an individual’s right to work in the UK extremely seriously and support initiatives to enhance safe and ethical recruitment.”

Julian Gravatt, Association of Colleges’ Director of Funding and Development, said:

“Issuing ID cards to overseas students should assist in the reduction of identity fraud.

“Colleges welcome any measure which facilitates the recruitment of genuine students to study in the UK and the economic benefits this brings.”

Tim Cowen, Director of Communications for NCP Services, said:

”This is good news for employers, and a credit to the work the UKBA has done to help make the hiring of migrant workers more streamlined for UK organisations.

“Employers will, quite rightly, still need to make sure their systems for spotting forgeries are robust, but the biometric cards will cut down on fraud and make it easier for us to do this.

“Crucially, it will also help those who genuinely have the right to work in the UK get employment quickly – since it will be easier to check their identity and get them working.”

DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT ONE

Posted by peiper     on 11/26/2008 at 02:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Government • News-Briefs • UK •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 25, 2008

Obama Will Appoint Thousands to Government Positions

I received my new US Embassy newsletter a few days ago, and only was able to read some of it today.
I did read all of this, it isn’t that long, and thought there might be a bit of interest in this here.

Presidential Transition
Documents & Texts from America.gov
17 November 2008
Obama Will Appoint Thousands to Government Positions

By Michelle Austein
Staff Writer

Washington — President-elect Barack Obama will appoint thousands of people to important government positions in his administration, but more than 2.6 million employees of the federal government will continue in the jobs they now hold.

Each president appoints thousands of political officials, including such high-profile posts as Cabinet secretaries, federal judges and ambassadors. These and many other high-level appointments are subject to confirmation by the Senate. (See “Dozens of Advisers Will Guide Next U.S. President.”)

But not all presidential appointments are at a high level. Hundreds of young political appointees will be serving in entry-level roles in the Obama administration.

According to 209-page The United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, published by the Government Printing Office, there are some 8,000 jobs that could be available in the next administration. The book, nicknamed the “Plum Book,” is printed every four years and designed to serve as a guide to those interested in learning about political positions.

The Plum Book was created at the request of President Dwight Eisenhower, who when taking office in 1953 wanted a list of all political positions. Today’s book lists each political job in the Bush administration, as well as the name of the person occupying the job and his or her salary. Some positions pay as much as $200,000, but most posts pay significantly less. Some jobs, like part-time advisory positions, pay just a few hundred dollars a year.

Even though there are 8,000 political jobs listed in the current book, Obama will not be appointing 8,000 people personally. Rather, many of those positions allow Cabinet secretaries and other officials to hire their own personal staffs. For example, the next secretary of state might want to select his or her own assistants. Additionally, the Obama transition team will be reviewing the list of jobs carefully and could decide to eliminate or add positions.

Political experts say about 3,000 of the jobs will be awarded by Obama and his transition team to those who helped with the campaign or are well-known for their work in specific fields appropriate to the positions.

A transition to a new administration does bring some new people to Washington, but the change has little impact on the employment of more than 2.6 million federal government workers. These workers, who are hired and serve at U.S. government offices around the world, continue in their nonpolitical positions. Most earn what is considered middle-class salaries by U.S. standards.

Many of these civilian employees have served at high levels through several presidential administrations. Because it might take some time for Obama’s new political appointees to begin their jobs, agencies have been identifying some of these career civil servants to serve temporarily in political appointees’ roles so that no important job is vacant.

STRINGENT JOB APPLICATION PROCESS

Those who want to be appointed to the Obama administration might have to undergo one of the most stringent job application processes in history. The process also will be competitive — five days after the transition team posted a jobs link on its Web site, Change.gov, about 144,000 applications already had been received.

Those under consideration for high-ranking positions must answer a seven-page questionnaire with 63 questions about their personal and professional lives. Applicants will have to provide significant details about their jobs and those of their spouses, their financial status and personal associations.

In what may be an indicator of changing times in an era of new technologies, applicants are expected to let the transition team know about their “Internet presence.” This includes information about their e-mails, Facebook pages or blog posts that could be deemed offensive.

One reason for the stringent application process is the Obama team’s pledge to reform Washington. Throughout his campaign, Obama promised to limit the role lobbyists and special interests play in influencing policy.

“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told the New York Times.

As part of that commitment, Obama’s team implemented rules designed to severely limit the role lobbyists can play in the transition. Anyone hoping to work on the transition cannot have lobbied in the policy field to which they are assigned within the past 12 months or be involved currently with any lobbying work. Those assisting with the transition also are prohibited from lobbying the Obama administration for the next 12 months on matters on which they work during the transition. (See “Obama Team Severely Restricts Role of Lobbyists in Transition.”)

The president himself has some limits on his selections. For example, it is unlikely an Obama relative will be working in the federal government. Federal law prohibits a public official from appointing, employing or promoting a relative in an agency “in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control.”

The PLUM BOOK.  can be viewed on the Government Printing Office’s Web site.

http://london.usembassy.gov/transition005.html

Posted by peiper     on 11/25/2008 at 04:21 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 16, 2008

Our Long Conservative Nightmare is Over

From my buddy flapjawman (I sure wish he’d change his handle!)

First, flapjawman’s observations:

I highly recommend his/her own observations of the high levels of indoctrination going on in the public schools - first hand, no less.  Keep in mind that students learning about the facts, America, etc, is also a form of indoctrination but the amount of “do what ever you want, go ahead, you have no responsibility anymore for anything” sort of indoctrination is the antithesis of what America stands for - unless I am mistaken…

This might explain Turtler’s recent attacks on me. Might. Or did he just jump to conclusions based on a sentence or two?

Back to Our long conservative nightmare is over:

Years of low taxes for everyone will finally come to an end, and others can now be taxed more. Years of low regulation and incredible innovation will come to an end, and predictable controlled low growth can be again the norm. Years of low unemployment will end, but even though it will go higher, it will be unemployment for productive people too, which is what people want. Years of no terrorist attacks will finally end, and we can go back to reacting to terrorist attacks, and reclaim the moral high ground of being killed and being upset by it. Years of terrorists on the run, killed in foreign countries, will be over, and we can go back to arresting bad guys when we convict them in a court of law or give them back to their own country for more fair justice than they’d get here. Yes, the long conservative nightmare is finally over.

The nation can begin to finally shake itself out of sleep, out of the dream it has been having of a world where we are the good guy, where god watches over us, where prosperity comes to all, where many voices are heard in the media, and where education is about teaching real knowledge- yes, this nightmare can end, and we can return the real world, of China, and Russia, and Kenya, and Iran, and North Korea.

The long conservative nightmare ends, and we wake to join our bothers and sisters of the world in union and equality.

Gods Yes!!. Get rid of all that sh*t! I feel better. . . not!

Posted by Christopher     on 11/16/2008 at 04:34 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics • Government • Obama, The One •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 28, 2008

Now that’s good government foresight!

A MAJOR earthquake in Tokyo would set off a crisis of “toilet refugees”, with a restroom shortage for nearly 820,000 people, a government study says.

An expert panel of the Government’s Central Disaster Prevention Council came to the conclusion this week while studying the potential impact of a 7.3-magnitude earthquake in the tremor-prone metropolis.

According to the study, some 817,000 people would find themselves without toilets two hours after such a big tremor, which would cut off 46 per cent of Tokyo’s water supply.

The wait to use a toilet would be 4½ hours in central Chiyoda ward, home to the headquarters of major companies, government buildings and the imperial palace.

“Besides food and water, shortage of toilets is one of the major issues in post-disaster situations,’’ said Itsuki Nakabayashi, head of the study panel.

The group is advising Tokyo residents always to carry pocket-sized tissues or plastic bags for emergency toilet use and urged companies to have portable toilets on standby.

The Japanese Government has warned that an earthquake with a magnitude of around seven could hit the capital in the coming decades, killing 11,000 people.

Horry Clap!

Posted by Drew458     on 10/28/2008 at 08:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • Government •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 26, 2008

Spread the wealth

Posted by Christopher     on 10/26/2008 at 02:24 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Fun-Stuff • Government •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 17, 2008

Voter Fraud In Ohio Will Continue As Usual

Now, before you get all wound up and declare this the end of Democracy As We Know It, due to Judicial Fiat, take a minute and read the actual decision and see learn what is being said:

So, what’s the story here? The ACORN fiasco has brought out the fact that the voter registration process and records in Ohio are a mess. Of the 660,000 or more new registrations, thousands are obvious frauds. And that doesn’t even look at the voters already registered. The Republican Party brought suit against Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, demanding that she get this cleaned up. It’s part of her job. The suit went right to court, and the decision was made that she provide a system for implementing voter fraud prevention methods, and verify at least 200,000 of these registrations. That decision is called a TRO, a Temporary Restraining Order.

She appealed that TRO, for whatever reasons, and the 6th Circuit Court denied her appeal. So she appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. And now the SCOTUS has agreed with her, and the TRO is gone. It is not that the Supreme Court does not feel she should be doing this as part of her job. It is not that the Supreme Court has any way of determining that she isn’t doing this aspect of her job. It’s that SCOTUS does not see that a private entity - the litigant, the GOP - has standing (ie legal grounds based on their suffering because of a ruling or law) to sue this branch of the Ohio government. Funny thing though. I would have thought that a suit, brought by a group that represents a fair amount of the public, that results in a bench order to a government worker that says “do your job” would be a straightforward and direct implementation of “the right of the people ... to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” But the whole SCOTUS decision is based on that murky legal concept of “standing”, that says you can’t make a fuss until after you’ve already suffered. So maybe the GOP should refile their suit after Election Day?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Democratic Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, granting her a stay on Friday to a temporary restraining order from the 6th Circuit Court that ordered her to provide a system for implementing voter fraud prevention methods.

The decision by the full court repudiates the lower court’s ruling siding with the Ohio Republican Party and ordering Brunner to verify records of about 200,000 of 666,000 new voters this year whose driver’s license and Social Security records don’t match information in other government databases.

In an unsigned order, the high court ruled that it could not say whether Ohio was properly enforcing the Help America Vote Act. However, it said the Ohio GOP doesn’t have the standing to file the suit.

So the Supreme Court is not deciding explicitly in favor of voter registration fraud, m’kay? However, let’s stop for a minute and look at the upshoot of this decision. ACORN has created a disaster in Ohio. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of voter registration forms there are fraudulent. Even if Ohio uses some kind of photo ID for voter identification, if processing these applications generates such photo IDs then they have just distributed a huge number of fake ones. Corrupt elections are based on two things: misconduct in the ballot counting, and voter fraud. And it seems obvious that a great part of voter fraud has to begin with fraudulent voter registration. Clean that aspect up and the whole system is cleaner. Not clean, mind you, but cleaner.

We go through this crap every four years. If any government - state, federal, local - had any real wish to eliminate voter fraud they would have figured some system out by now and put it into place, and had plenty of time to fine tune it. This is not the case. How could it be, when, barely 3 weeks out from Election Day, some lower court is issuing an injunction that the Ohio Secretary of State provide a system to eliminate voter fraud? This suit never would have happened if Ohio had cleaned out this litter box long before now, and put some laws into place that would keep it clean. They are not doing their job. And now SCOTUS has ruled that you and I do not have the legal right to sue them to make them do their job. So the fraud will continue until such time as some state government official goes on a Grail Quest to clean up the voter rolls and the voting process, and gets full approval and a big green light from the State and the Courts. And that will never happen. Why? Because it hasn’t happened in the past 100 years or more. Voter fraud, fake registrations, ballot box stuffing, miscounting, hanging chads, and disenfranchisement are just noisemakers, trotted out every 4 years so that the losing parties have something to blame their loss on. Then they go back in their box and get ignored. Again. ALWAYS. Forever.

Is the voting system in Ohio a mess, and wracked with fraud? Without doubt. So is the voting system in your state. And mine. And even though a state and national purification of the system would do a great deal to restore people’s faith in their governments, nothing will be done. Ever. And now it’s been decided that you can’t even sue about it. At least ahead of time. So sit down and shut up and submit.

WRONG !!!
Vote them out of power. The crooked, the corrupt, and the just plain lazy and incapable. Demand that the voting process be cleaned up, made transparent, and made more wholesome than organic mother’s milk. Push for recalls to pull those in power out of office if they will not fix the problem. They represent us. WE. The People. So if WE want fair elections then WE have to get to work to make THEM do The Right Thing. That’s all there is to it. But until the Left WE can agree with the Right WE that this is what WE want, THEY are not going to do anything.

In the end, it’s all up to YOU, The Person.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/17/2008 at 01:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner