Yes your witty, intellectual and stunningly beautiful,  ok ok, you occasionally funny, knower of random trivialities and occasionally good looking if the light is right pundit will be embarking on a 2 1/2 week road trip around Europe.

On the journey we will be covering France, Spain and Germany ans will be stoping off at Reims, La Rochelle, Barcelona, Marseille and Munich, not to mention a few other random places on the way!

Wish us luck!

After the holiday I will be writing some of it up at http://www.explorationtofreedom.blogspot.com

See you later!

Therefore it was refreshing to read a story regarding a man, who after splitting up with his wife five years ago became an alcoholic, spending around £500 a week.  He was recently convicted of his seventh driving offence, but spared jail on the offence that he did not touch or drinking alcohol for 12 months.

This isn’t however what made me laugh, as part of the judges verdict, he said,

‘(That is) poor judgement on two counts there — drinking that much and drinking Melbourne Bitter,”

This coming from a country where personal choice in beer is sometimes fought for as aggressively as their support for football teams I could not help but laugh at the judge bringing this rivalry into the courtroom, something that would see a judge suspended in the UK.

God bless Australia.

The difference is they are now targeting civilians in their own countries. I really despair as to what they hope to achieve by bombing, for instance, a market filled with women and children, barely any men and no security forces.

How can someones mind be twisted to a point where they not only believe this is a good idea, but that the senseless slaughter of the children of their own country will somehow guarantee them a place in heaven.

It seems however that this will not stop occurring in the near future, and there is not really any possible way we can prevent it ourselves, after all how do you reason with a person so undeniably insane that they will blow themselves up around children and women with the sole goal of hatred and revenge and the belief that they will go to heaven afterwards.

It saddened me to think that in today’s day and age there are people out there who can seriously bomb the weak and think they are doing the correct thing

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.

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.

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.

But Genetic experimentation has taken things just one step further this week.  Scientists have made and tested a bacterium that will eat a common produce, possibly even garbage,  and excrete pure petroleum.

Not only that but for all you Carbon footprint nuts out there this bug actually has a negative carbon footprint, that means that when these bugs are working they will infact consume more carbon than they excrete while creating the petrol. So could this really be a carbon reducing, garbage reducing, environmentally safe way to create petrol and remove America from foreign oil dependence?

Well yes, currently, ermmmm…. one catch though…

You would need a factory the size of Chicago to do so.

The good news is that the scientists who created the fuel pooping bacteria are working hard on refining the bug to increase its productivity and growth.  Who knows in a couple of years we could have home garbage disposal units that make petrol for us!

A man can dream…

Now there is the argument that  they do a hard job, that deserves high pay.  After all they run companiesof significant size, comparable to people who have started companies that have risen to huge success. Should their paypacket however be enough to keep a small country going for a year?

Several countries have begun to implement limits on exective pay, with several northern countries bringing in a 500,000 euros limit on Executive pay.

So should there be this limit?

It’s a close call, should the goverment really have this kind of power over individual companies?

With the governments track record in America or the UK in managing their own affairs I find it worrying that they are dictating how to business how they should be run.

What amuses me slightly is that

The Green Party are pushing for the Carbon credit tax and have arrived at a value

The industrial lobby have been lobbying for business rebates to avoid bankruptcies due to high energy bills.

People are complaining because their energy bills are already high enough, and there is a very real possibility that they will be hit hard by this (Energy producers create a great deal of carbon, the cost of paying this would be passed onto the consumer)

The Government has suggested that out of the estimated 7 trillion dollars raised, 1 trillion is sent to government debt, some is spent on energy efficiency research and the rest is sent back to the tax payer as a rebate.

Ok, so I look at this and what do I see, half the money going back to the industry, half the money going back to the tax payer, a whole load of red tape and extra burden on industries who will have to employ people to figure out their carbon usage, survive the gap before they get their research and so forth.  Meanwhile the taxes will increase by around the extra amount the energy companies have to pay (around $22 a tonne) but that alright because the consumers will get a regular rebate giving them their money back.

Does anyone else see the complete pointlessness of this latest environmental debacle.  I cannot believe there are serious political contenders out there who would consider such a farce in the current recessive economic climate, let alone a strong one.

I think I may move to Australia, last time somebody tried to introduce a red tape tactic there they were sent to jail for a minor offence of treason and damaging the economy, why does that not happen here or in the US?

Politicians are destroying our economy for their own selfish and misguided ideals which they have shrouded by their own self illusion.  Yet even when incompetence is proven there is no backlash, no fines or punishment, half the time jobs are not even lost.

It scares me.

This is a move which has severly handicapped disabled and older people, as well as the agriculture industry and people who live in rural areas.

Many older or people with slight physical difficulties require larger cars, and the agriculture industry is on the verge of being reduced back to the ‘horse and cart, ox and plough’ era as tractors are announced to be non environmentally friendly.

But its nice to know that a European Conference of some of the worlds greatest minds spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of EU taxpayers money to decide that since requiring fuel efficiency to be included in advertising was not having the desired effect it should infact take up a minimum of 20% of the advertising.

Now did it ever occur to these people that many people need larger cars, whether its because tey have a family to move about, friends to give lifts to, goods to transport, people need big cars and no matter how large your advertising is it will not change the fact that a person looking for a people carrier will still buy a people carrier and a single person living in the city will probably buy a smaller car.

Don’t get me wrong, fuel efficiency is important and useful information when buying a car, but automobile advertising accounts for a massive percentage of western advertising, outflanked only by credit cards and followed closely by mobile phones.

Now imagine if these car companies are suddenly forced to  increase their advertising space by 20%, thats 20% more paper used, 20% more trees cut down.

This is scarily close to another recent move on Ethanol, a fuel only transportable by vehicles, where it was decreed by those up on high that gasoline/petrol created for road use must contain at least 5% ethanol, the governmetns even subsidised ethanolproduction world wide.

The result?  The speed the rainforest is being cut down has increased dramatically, with rainforest being burned down (Not logged) at an alarming rate for Palm Oil crops. Transportation of this fuel has greatly increased pollution in these areas and since 20% of worldwide farms are now given to Ethanol production third world countries have seen food prices rocket.

My position in this fiasco is clear, global warming has been proven to be part of a natural cycle caused by the Earths relation to the Sun.  It’s a simple fact that the Earth is in fact leaving an ice age, so bound to be warming up, its also a simple fact that carbon released by the sea increases as it warms up (Creating a nice relational graph, you can do an experiment in a lab to prove this)  and its also true that the graphs and data used to support global warming were debunked well over 25 years ago.

The money spent so far on ‘reducing carbon footprints’ numbrs in the hundreds of millions, and the new EU fund proposed on tackling this looks set to massively increase that.  This is money that could be used to help Britian pull itself out of recession and bankruptcy, it could be used to build new recycling plants, finally researching ways to make them more effective.

It could even be used to feed all those starving families in thirld world countries who have been condemmed to death by western incompetancy.

It seems however that we will just see more insane laws and advertising teling us to be ‘green’ while more and more of us fail to pay mortgages and thirld world countries slide into oblivion as they cannot even afford to eat.