I’m a Pundit

I have just read a story on Fox News about how the Canadian Government will be giving out free heroin to addicts.  Now from a generic viewpoint this has been put in place to reduce HIV, overdoses, death and crime. 

Ok I can see where they are coming from, give them free clean heroin and you remove the problems.

I have another idea, for every convicted felon for burglary we should give a government stipend of $5000, this way they wont need to rob people and they wont injure themselves when they are ‘working’ 

Maybe they should set up an online application for people who were thinking of becoming criminals ‘sign up now and we will send you money not to commit crimes!’

You could have options to change your stipend, 

‘Will you or do you

a) Rob houses for upto $10,000 dollars per month 

b) Rob or steal Items of upto $5,000 dollars value per month

c) Mug homies of other gangs yo innit for a poppin $1000 a mo in that right mutha f*ker’ 

Do you kinda see what I’m getting at here?

Of course the guy leading this campaign seems absolutely oblivious as to how ineffective this campaign will be, and even more worryingly the Vancouver chief of police no less is supporting this because, and I quote 

“I’m not a medical expert, this is not my field. I’m an expert in public safety,” Graham said. “And if this will help reduce the crime rate — I’m all for it.”

If I may say so someone who is meant to be in charge of public safety has a very short sighted view of what will happen if the number of heroin addicts increases. (Which will happen if there is no removal of dependancies, fewer deaths etc, Darwin explains the survival of the fittest scenario!)

This program is in my eyes abominable, I do not know how any government, let alone the fairly level headed Canadian government can condone it.

written by Oli \\ tags: Addiction, Drug Use, Government, Heroin, Methadone, Mistake

Equality minister Harriet Harman has today been laying down plans in England for a Law which I am heavily against.

Currently in the UK there are laws that say a persons ethnicity or religion should not affect a job application, for Harriet Harman however this does not seem enough.

Let me point out right here and now that I am 100% against ethnic and religious tolerance, I believe what the world needs is ethnic and religious indifference.

In Harmans speach she spends a lot of time segregating groups, even promoting discrimination, saying that if a company is short on blacks, men, women, muslims whatever they should try and balance things up.

In my view religion, race or cultre should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on someones job unless it would physically affect their ability to perform the functions of the job.

If a black person got a job over me because he was more suited to the role I would not complain, if he got the job because he was black I would be annoyed.

This planned segregation is the pure fantasy afforded by those who do not have to deal on a day to day basis with the problems encountered in the working world.

How can an equality Minister hold her job when she is actually promoting the discriminiation of  people, isshe seriously that stupid?

I thought the worst part of her entire speach was when she noted

“Official figures show that the gender pay gap has been declining, but for every pound a man earns, a woman still earns just 87 pence. Female part-time workers also still earn as much as 40% less than their full-time male counterparts”

Ok, hold on one second Ms Harman, did you just compare FULL TIME male workers against PART TIME female workers?

Of course the women in that group are getting paid fucking less you stupid fucking bitch, they are part fucking time.  If you want equality, since you are the ‘equality’ minister why the fuck are you not comparing men and women who are both part timers ratehr than trying to swing the statistics your way.

I apologise for the language but she does, fucking, deserve it.

written by Oli \\ tags: Bigotry, Bitch, Equal Pay, Equality, Harriet Harman, Racism, Sexism

Green lifestyle has come back to the forefront of the public mind in recent years, headed by the train of global warming.  This isnt the first time environmental isues have hit the forefront of the publics attention, with both the 60’s and 70’s having several year periods of environmental attention which waned as quickly as they appeared.

As the new millennium arrived a new catch phrase was spawned by the environmentalists, the Carbon Footprint.  On this they showed how carbon had a direct collations with global warming, and that we made a hell of a lot of it.  They ignored things such as, the graph they used failed to show any of earths warm periods or mini ice ages, warmer temperatures cause carbon level rises from vegetation, this warm period was predicted 800 years ago as part of the earth solar cycle, the type of carbon that effects the earths temperature is around 0.25% of the worlds global carbon production and so on.

Despite the facts to the contrary the political figures began to latch onto the carbon footprint as a vote accumulator, suddenly Environmentalism was a hot topic again.  Government sponsored expeditions were sent to where the ice shelf was melting (While of course ignoring the places where the ice shelves were growing, after all that’s not where the action is happening and can be discounted).

The media jumped into this frenzy with gusto, after all if it buts votes it surely sells newspapers.  Nearly every major newspaper opened up a section on its website and brought in Environmentalist columnists for its papers.  By this point whenever anybody questioned the Carbon Footprint Validity they were shot down with phrases such as “But look how much proof there is!”  Despite all the proof being re-iterated statements from the 1980’s and graphs showing earths temperature and carbon levels rising, which just happens to be a natural phenomenon when the Earth gets closer to the Sun.

People who had spent the last 25 years sat in Indian villages smoking copious amounts of weed appeared yet again, brandishing the environmentalist flag, saying how they had lived at one with nature, ignoring the years they had smoked pesticide drenched ganja for the majority of their desireless lives.

The politicians pretty much all jumped on the Carbon Footprint boat as soon as it became popular in the majority of developed countries.  Nearly every government adopted it as it’s ’save the world’ policy, and it did turn out to be a bit of a vote winner.

Now however as more and more scientists are speaking out that not only is the carbon theory of global warming a load of bullock manure but if carbon WAS causing global warming we should not be investing in reducing it like we currently are.  Instead the government should be spending in long term research for carbon reduction.  Of course the problem with that is long term strategy does not get votes.

Despite the resurgence of environmental popularity however things seem to be dropping off.  Live Earth, designed to be a huge popularity stunt failed miserably when it attracted only 2.2 million American viewers, eclipsed by every other half decent TV program showing at the time.  Despite the campaigns the only real difference in recycling is from the companies that have been forced by law to adapt, and nearly everyone questioned says that despite the dire warnings given over the Earths future they will not change their ways.

The fact of the matter is that for the majority Environmentalism is a fad, Global Warming is an even shorter fad that takes off once every two decades (60’s 80’s 00’s). 

Not only that but some of the more serious environmental agencies (Those who at one point were boosted by the popularity of global warming but now actually want to try and make a difference) have stepped back and taken a look at what their work has achieved.

Due to the carbon footprint campaign

Funding has been lost for 17 new recycling centres

An environmental policy to provide funding for cleaner industry in China failed, meaning the Great Barrier Reef is dying at a faster rate each and every day.

The rain forest is being burnt down at an exceptional speed (Not being logged) to make room for ethanol fuel production. 

Ethanol cannot be transported by pipe so is actually being transported everywhere by Truck and Boat.

3^rd world poverty is increasing because food prices have nearly tripled, in part caused by 1/5^th of world farms turning to ethanol production and increased food transport costs caused by green party led increases in fuel tax (Ethanol is now a mandatory requirement for gasoline and petrol manufacturers to include in their produce creating massive demand)

Tens of thousands of businesses have gone under as peoples livelihoods are destroyed by increased transport costs.

And so on.

It is for this reason that some of these environmental agencies are now calling on politically free research on the topic while concentrating funding on areas that are more substantiated and resolvable.

This is a fantastic move in my opinion, allowing agencies with fantastic resource capability and experience to move into the fields they are most suited to, whether it be saving endangered animals, saving the coral reef or the rainforests. 

The best part is that now realisation has dawned that the publicity surrounding the ‘carbon footprint’ is having a hugely adverse effect on the environment it will hopefully move into the political community, freeing up resource for projects that really can make a difference, here and now.

As the political viewpoint changes, already occurring with the conservatives in the UK, it is becoming more and more apparent that the scientific community is turning more towards the rather apparent concern that there has been a huge mistake has occurred in government sponsored research by the European council.

The main mistake in my opinion is tasking scientists to prove that global warming exists and that it is man made Without putting together a group to prove that Global Warming is natural and if it is infact happening.

Scientific knowledge has progressed over the centuries due to debate and argument, by making a group with a specific goal (And removing over two thirds of the work because it did not agree with what they wanted) they are simply hindering the progress of environmental science for political gain.

written by Oli \\ tags: Carbon Footprint, Global Warming, Green

Today all the papers were in uproar about the 2p increase in fuel taxes in England (Which several months ago they were thanking gordon brown for postponing till later in the year).  Gordon brown proceeded to say that taxes were not the problem but that the cost of Fuel Globally must be tackled.

Now, hang on a second Gordon. The average price of fuel in 2007 was 95.1p per litre, thats high yes, but not as high as the 63.7p Duty which is included in that cost.

Without Gordons tax, which at one point drove Fuel Duty to 81.5% of fuel cost, we would be paying a measly 31.4 pence per litre in fuel.

Now What Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling do not seem to want to take into account is that the myriad of taxes in this country has stifled our economy.  Fuel Costs especially have destroyed many businesses as their costs have rose above customer income.  Taxis, once a fairly good way of getting around have seen prices sky rocket, and transportation companies are failing nationwide.

But yet despite the current take government is getting from Fuel, well over two thirds of what you pay at the pump, high fuel prices are apparently not Gordons Fault.

Think of it like this,  if everything you took to the till tripled in cost when you paid for it would you be happy?

Hell No!

When you looked at the price on your goods and then asked the cashier why the cost was 3 times that of the actualy price what wouldyou think if she said it was the basic cost rising, even though she was the one who put the cost up by so much?

While I am not a vindictive person it is fairly obvious even to me that the people running the UK need to take a good long hard look at themselves and then jump off the nearest cliff.

written by Oli \\ tags: Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Politics, Tax

It was announced today that non violent and non sexual offenders in britain could see their sentences halved.

This is in my mind a despicable state of affairs, letting out criminals early simply because the government will not stretch to building a new prison.

Something that worries me immensely in the Uk is the fact that the prison system costs around £40,000 ($80,000) a prisoner per year to maintain.  Now considering people are expected to get by on around £8000 ($16,000), and most people do not earn above teh £20,000 till the hit their middle years, you can begin to worry about how exactly ourmoney is being spent.

Personally I think jails are too cushy, human rights protestors have made things easy for those who quite simply do not care about human rights.  I am not saying that everyone in prison is that bad, but they have to have done something to get there.

When someone breaks the law they are accepting responsibility for the consequences.

So why is it that we are paying what equates to around £330 a day to keep each prisoner incapacitated?

I worry about this counry sometimes!

written by Oli \\ tags: Prison

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421045.stm

I read this story on the BBC news site today, it raised one of those good ol’ moral dilemas.  This woman has HIV and will most likely die if returned to her home country.  She has already been treated here in the UK several times on our NHS at tax payers cost, despite being an illegal immigrant.

Now how do you weigh a persons life against your own cash?

The fact of the matter is that millions of pounds of tax payers money is spent treating people who have come to the UK for that sole reason, the NHS is a very large, complex and overall easily abused system.

The problem is if you treat one person, why not treat them all?

Every year we send back thousands of people who have come to this country to abuse our system, as nice as you make it sound they come here illegally simply to take what they want.

Others of course come here because they want to live in Britain, to contribute and to become part of our society.  There is a clear, if unmeasurable difference between the two.

How can we keep out those who are abusing the country and let in those who want to join England?

And how do you turn someone away who so desperately needs medical attention, whatever their skin colour, creed or religion?

While it would be nice to treat the world we simply cannot afford it, hell we can hardly afford to treat ourselves with the NHS’s drug boards regularly cutting important medication and treatments from what we get on the NHS.

I have to admit it is a subject matter I would not want to be the policy owner on.  Do you bankrupt the country or stand to be hit by claims of racism and hatred?

Maybe we should look more to other countries, ones that protect their own heritage?

Ones that are not afraid to stand and say, this is us, if you can contribute you can join but do not expect our country to bend to your will.

written by Oli \\ tags: Culture, Disease, England, Heritage, Immigration

In the effort to progress human research into stem cells the Government is considering repeal laws against experimentation with a mix of human and animal embryos.

Now the religions and pussy footed human rights groups have been up in arms on this one, no surprise there. But the focus of this experimentation is a rather strange and mind boggling one.

Personally I am a bit undecided, Christian groups said this move strikes against the heart of human Morales, but wouldn’t something that gave the potential to save millions of lives be a good thing?

I think it is important to remember that this is not aiming to be an Island of Doctor Monroe scenario. These crosses would be grown in the hope that we could gain a greater number of stem cells for a single embryo.

This whole situation brings in a massively controversial angle to an already hotly debated topic. After all the ending of human life at an early stage for research is hardly a non-argument between pro-life and the scientific community.

From a more personal aspect I believe this research should go ahead, I will support nearly anything that looks like it has a serious possibility of improving human life. Stem cell research has already proven immensely effective on the treatment of previously fatal illnesses, the only reason such medication is not already in use is down to he morality issues put forth by pro lifers.

I can see their point in some respects, an embryo could grow into the worlds next greatest artist or scientist. How do we know?

To that I would always point out, it could also be the next Hitler. These things happen ey.

The mixing of animal and human genes does seem at a fundamental level ‘wrong’ but for something that could save millions of lives who am I to complain? After all people take an animals heart already, how is changing an embryo different?

written by Oli

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson today announced that he could see the end of the US Credit Crunch being in the very near future.  This has raised a lot of skepticism from economists and pundists around the world who ask the question, should someone with such an obtuse view of the US economy really be in charge of it?

Currently the US economy, along with the UK and several other EU countries is under a period of normalization to bring living costs back into line with wages.

Henery Paulson seems blissfully unaware of this fact as he tried to stall the depression recently with a government rebate to his country.  If he thinks a hundred or so dollars is going to stop the increasng number of bankruptcies he really is in trouble.

He mentions the recovery of several lending agencies, however he does not point out that the collapse of these was due to ‘loss of faith’ that saw the Northern Rock Bank Nationalised in the UK in 2007.  The credit agencies will still suffer as people in the countries become poorer and find it increasingly difficult to maintain a lifestyle they hope for without becoming heavily in debt.

written by Oli \\ tags: America, Credit Crunch, Debt, Economy, US, USA

Just incase anyone has been reading the BBC site recently they have reported on the current legal battle being spearheaded by the Greek people of Lesbos.  They claim that a gay rights group should not be allowed to use the word lesbian because it is infact the name used for the people of Lesbos.

Now first off let me say I have a lot of respect for lesbians, especially the fit ones.  If women want to cop off with each other I think that is a great thing.

The legal action against the gay group is most certainly going to fail, after all lesbian is a recognised term for a female attracted to the same sex, most people trying to name the people of lesbos may guess at lesbosian before lesbian.

The Islanders aversion to the use of the name  Lesbian has actually effected them so much that they are now considering renaming their island after their capital Mytilini (Actually a fantastic place to visit)

But this has of course left us with a quandary, The Lesbian people of Lesbos have undoubtedly held the name for much longer than the lesbian movement, should the lesbian movement therefore have the right to take it away from the people of Lesbos?

The Lesbian Movement named itself after the goddess Sappho who expressed her love for women in poetry during the 7th century BC. However Dimitris Lambrou standing for the people of Lesbos said that the the goddess committed suicide over the love of a man and that she mothered a family,  therefore making the connection to lesbianism irrelevant.

Jesus it’s complicated!

written by Oli \\ tags: Greece, Lesbianism, Sexuality

Never in all my life have I seen a level of political and economical incompetency equal to that of our government system.

They actually say, and I quote,

“a moratorium would mean missing out on an opportunity to make carbon savings now and reneging on commitments on which biofuels producers had made investments.”

This is basically saying, we can make carbon savings now that make us look good, and we do not disappoint the farmers who have made investments in biofuel production, for instance those that have spent money burning the rainforest.  Don’t worry about THOSE carbon emissions,  they do not count towards our quota.

Yes despite the fact their policies are cutting down rainforest which naturally reduces carbon tehy are pressing ahead to meet their own political targets.  Well done Environmentalists,  Carbon is scientifically provennot to cause global warming but your own unsupported theories that you have pushed to public prominence have taken focus from the worlds real issues and now mean that we are suffering.  Food prices have tripled, thousands more are dieing from hunger and one of the worlds greatest resources the Rainforest,  is not even being cut down, but burned to make way for ethanol crops.

Gordon Brown, Labours most recent stumbling bumbling sock puppet has said that he will look into the situation pending a government review into wether the ethanol subsidies and standards they have set (ie all fuel must have a minimum 5, rising to 10% by 2010 ethanol mix) are causing damage to the environment and starvation in thirdworld countries.

First off, do you really need a government review to see food prices have tripled, or that one in five farms previously used for food is now producing fuel.  Do you really need a government review to see the riots happening because countries can no longer afford food?

On the other hand the National Farms Union (Whos members are now raking in fantastic profits for no extra cost)  representative Peter Kendal said that Biofuels represent the only practical Energy alternative for replacing fossil fuels in transport.  Allthough it is interesting to see that he did not mention electric, which can produce fast cars that travel for hundreds of miles on one charge.

Its re-assuring to know that he is infact jsut an idiot when later he says Biofuels are not the only solution to climate change but only part of a package.

This tpic gets me so wound up, Global warming isn’t going to destroy this world but the people in charge might, tehy do not look at the consequences of their actions, they follow whats popular and they do not fight for their cause.  New Labour? Pah it doesnt even support the labour classes.  The Green Party? They are responsible for a twofold increase in the speed the rainforest is being demolishe, the liberal party? They want to increase the classification of drugs and restrict our freedoms.

The Conservatives, well they just seem to be what every other party is becoming in order to buy votes.

written by Oli \\ tags: , Biofuels, Ethanol, Food, Food Prices, Gordon Brown, Government, Oil