Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Naked Royal Flush
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Deciding Who Lives And Dies
Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.
Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.
The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?
And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.
So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.
This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Liberalism Kills
A 53 year old woman saw Burgess have the seizure and fall into the water. She called the emergency response people and the police arrived within two minutes. But as one officer began removing his shoes to wade into the pond, he was ordered to wait for “trained” specialists. This had been declared a water rescue and the police are not equipped for that.
Then a paramedic arrived. He was told he could not enter the water because he lacked the right “protective” clothing. If he tried to enter the water, he would violate workplace regulations and presumably could lose his job.
Then the fire department arrived, but they lacked the “proper training” for a water rescue. Specifically, they cited a regulation which prevents them from wading into water that is more than ankle-deep without special training. Thus, they called for additional specialists. They also decided that Burgess had to be dead as he had been in the water for 10 minutes, even though people who have been submerged up to 60 minutes have been saved.
At that point, a police officer decided to go into the water. But he was told he would be criminally prosecuted if he proceeded. He was told that the fire department was on scene and engaged in a “body retrieval situation” and that he was not to interfere. The fire department also refused to loan him a lifejacket.
Thirty minutes later, the specialists arrive. By this point, twenty-five rescue personnel were on scene. They finally retrieved the body forty minutes after Burgess first fell into the pond. Mr. Burgess was dead.
Here’s a critical fact: the pond is only 2-3 feet deep. Indeed, the image above shows a Daily Mail reporter who has waded out into the pond.
Think about this entire shameful event and ask yourself where things went wrong? The answer is: generations of liberalism.
Liberalism formalizes human relationships by law and regulation. This is the very nature of liberalism, that the government will protect you from all dangers by establishing rules and regulations which tell everyone precisely how they should act. In so doing, it absolves people of their sense of personal responsibility by replacing the duties we all owe each other as human beings with specific regulations which dictate acceptable and unacceptable. That was what was on display in Gosport.
● The 53 year old woman did exactly what liberals tell you to do when faced with criminals, bullies or emergencies: call the authorities and make no attempt to solve the problem yourself. She made no attempt to pull this man from the water or turn him over even though she saw him pass out and knew the water was shallow.Twenty-five trained “rescue personnel” stood around threatening each other with regulations and criminal prosecution while they let a man die because they were unwilling to wade out into a knee-deep pond. That’s shameful.
● The first police officer decided specialists were needed to wade out 25 feet in knee-deep water because that is what he was told.
● The paramedic chose his job over saving a man’s life and he hid behind the excuse that he lacked the protective clothing needed to wade into a pond.
● The fire department was worse. They let a bogus regulation stop them from saving a man in an obviously harmless situation. Then they declared him dead even though others have been saved who were submerged for up to six times longer and even though they didn’t really know if he had been face down for ten minutes. They did this because it soothed their consciences for choosing to follow the regulations rather than their moral obligations as human beings. Interestingly, they have been criticized because it turns out the regulation only applies to floods. But that misses the point of what went wrong here. The problem wasn’t that the regulation was wrong, the problem was the reliance on regulations over human judgement in the first place.
● Finally, consider the officer who wanted to save the man when he saw the shameful conduct of the others but stopped when he was threatened with criminal prosecution. Would that have stopped you?
It’s also the same behavior you see when a DMV clerk won’t correct a typo, when an IRS agent won’t admit a mistake, when social workers won’t save an abused child because they don’t have all the right forms filled out, etc. This is the result of liberalism: bureaucratic form over human substance.
Now compare this with Ben Patrick, a former tight end for the Arizona Cardinals. He was driving along in Arizona when he came upon a van that had flipped onto its side. The van apparently was leaking gasoline. Yet, a GROUP of people, including Patrick, stopped and helped pull people out of the van even though it could have exploded. Said Patrick:
“My first thought was just to help the people on the inside.”Patrick did what, in my experience, most Americans would do. He saw people in an emergency situation and he went to help. He did this at great personal risk as the van could have exploded or caught fire. He didn’t wait for the trained professionals or worry about protective clothing or consulting regulations. He did what humans are meant to do.
The comparison here is truly apt. When people live in a nanny (i.e. liberal/socialist) state, they lose their sense of right and wrong and their sense of personal responsibility. It happens in small and large ways. And in Gosport you see it writ large. These people let this man die because none of them felt it was their obligation to save him. They felt their obligations were to the system and the rules it put into place. Patrick, on the other hand, showed what happens when people are accountable to themselves and cannot hide behind the excuse, “I was just following orders.”
This is not hyperbole: America is the greatest nation on Earth precisely because its people are free to make their own choices and bear the economic, reputational, and moral consequences of their own actions.
Kudos to Mr. Patrick, you are an honorable and decent human being. Shame on Gosport. And shame on anyone who wants to make America more like Gosport.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Why The Nanny State Destroys All It Touches
Our story comes to us from the DailyMail Online (LINK), perhaps the greatest source of actual information left on the planet. This particular story deals with changes that have been made to Exhibition Road in the heart of London’s museum quarter.
For years now, liberal safety advocates have been installing ever more safety measures to protect drivers and pedestrians. This has ranged from restrictive rules for drivers to signs warning drivers about dangers to curbs meant to separate the road from the sidewalk to railings meant to pen in pedestrians to designated crosswalks, etc. The idea was that the government would find all the potential dangers and then warn drivers and pedestrians about them or they would find ways to eliminate those dangers.
Of course, that’s not how it worked out. Why? Because once the government took over warning people about what to watch for, they stopped taking precautions themselves and they relied on the government’s warnings. So now the conservative government is yanking these things out again and lo and behold, it’s actually getting safer. Here’s a picture of the road today with all the gates and curbs and signs removed:
“When the rules by which traffic normally operates are removed - signs, barriers and curb markings - drivers become more observant. They make more eye-contact with pedestrians which produces greater watchfulness. They use the road more like pedestrians. They take more responsibility for their actions. [S]tudies have shown that when traffic lights are removed from crossings, traffic flows more freely and efficiently because drivers take more care.”Imagine that. When the government takes responsibility for something, people take less personal responsibility for their own actions. When the government stops playing nanny, people take more responsibility for their actions. Who could have guessed?
And there’s more. Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London said this:
“The psychology of this scheme is fascinating. Experience seems to show that when you dedicate space to traffic and control it with signs and green traffic lights, motorists develop a claim on it. It becomes ‘my space.’ Drivers become annoyed if people move into it.”In other words, they develop a sense of entitlement.
Folks, this is exactly what conservatives warn about with government. When the government gives something to people, they develop feelings of entitlement and they become belligerent to anyone who violates “their rights.” What’s more, they stop taking personal responsibility for their own actions in those areas, i.e. they become dependent on the government.
This issue right here is the human condition in a nutshell and proves the conservative belief that the nanny state is destructive, not constructive. It destroys those it seeks to help. This is exactly why generations of government welfare have destroyed the families who accepted the government’s intervention in their lives. This is why big businesses who have come to rely on the government need bailouts to keep them afloat. This is why we are facing a crushing amount of regulation today, because once the government begins taking care of you, it keeps moving into more and more aspects of your life as you become increasingly helpless. These are not coincidences.
This is why government stinks on a human level and it applies to everything the government touches. There is an incredible lesson here, will anybody learn it? Seeing as how Los Angeles just banned footballs and frisbies from being thrown on the beach. . . I’m thinking the answer is no.
[+] Read More...
Monday, October 17, 2011
Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again
If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?
While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.
To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:
● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.
According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?
But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.
Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.
Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.
The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.
Talk about an unholy alliance!
I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Even The LA Times Sees The Irony
The Los Angeles Times ran a headline story on Monday entitled "British fear 'American-style' healthcare system." I figured it would be another liberal/left article about how we ignorant Americans just don't understand the brilliance of Euro-style socialized medicine with all its great advantages over our horse and buggy system. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be a humor piece.The Brits exhibited anger and wounded pride when the Obamacare debate was taking place over the past two years in the U.S. After all, the failed system to which it was most often compared was the British National Health Service. As the author Henry Chu said, Republican gurus, most particularly Sarah Palin, kept poking at the NHS as "evil, Orwellian, and generally the enemy of everything good and true."
So as Chu said, it was time for payback. The NHS is bankrupt years ahead of Medicare and Social Security, and its service is the envy of all civilized nations such as Botswana and Niger. Waiting time for an appointment with a doctor has been reduced from a year or two down to six months or so. Specialists take a little longer, but that's just a quibble. So in answer to Palin's "death panel" criticism, the Brits are scrambling to damn any NHS reform as leading to "American-style" health care.
Ask Brit John Bull or anyone else on the London streets to describe "American-style" health care, and you'll get the whole litany of grossly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures and a system that refuses health care to the poor and needy. They got their script from Obama and Nancy Pelosi. The average Brit understands that government bureaucrats and politicians are the font of wisdom from which all good medical care flows. They are terrified that if the current revamping of the "results-oriented" first come-first served (eventually) system occurs, the next thing you know, doctors and patients will be making decisions. Who the hell are doctors and patients to be questioning health care delivery and treatment?
Meanwhile, back in the jungle known as the United States, rich doctors and uncaring medical facilities continue to toss the poor and deserving out into the street by the millions because they don't have medical insurance and can't afford treatment even for a simple hangnail. Just ask the Brits--they know. They call the foolish idea of medical care being controlled by doctors and patients "privatization by stealth," and they ain't giving up their "free" health care.
"Conservative" Prime Minister David Cameron had to reassure the British people that any revisions to the current system would not "sell off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system." God forbid. He even repeated the words "American-style" in his five guarantees of what won't happen during his attempts to improve the already-excellent system that the government-dependent Brits have come to accept as "successful."
As Chu points out: "Governments of all stripes have taken office pledging to reform the system, to streamline it and make it more efficient, but none has fully succeeded [since its inception in 1948], knowing that they tinker with the NHS at their peril. The current Conservative-led coalition, which has embarked on the most radical public spending cuts in a generation, has promised not to take a penny from the health service." The Brits constantly complain to each other about long waits for simple appointments, long waiting lines, nearly-medieval hospitals, and uncaring doctors who make snap diagnoses. But Americans calling their beloved system "the epitome of socialized medicine gone wrong" causes Brits to rush to its defense.
So trying to clean up the clinics and hospitals, which are often third-world quality, requires British politicians to say things like "this has been a genuine chance for people to work together to strengthen the institution we all love and hold dear." The Brits also love putting their dirty dinnerware in a big tub of suds, and picking them back out for the next meal, but that's another story entirely.
I researched the NHS when I first suspected I might have cancer. Here's the difference. I called my family practitioner in the afternoon. The next day, I was in his office getting a preliminary workup. The indications weren't good, so he immediately sent me to an oncological surgeon whom I saw the same day. The next day they had me fully tested and ready for surgery. My cardio-vascular surgeon was with the cancer surgeon in the operating room since the cancer manifested itself close to the aorto-bifemoral bypass that I had been through nine years earlier--just for safety's sake. Then came six months of state-of-the art chemotherapy in an immaculate, friendly hospital outpatient clinic.
My research taught me that with the NHS, I would most likely have had to wait two to three weeks for the initial doctor appointment, and a laundry list of horrible followup told me that by the time they finally got me into surgery, it would likely have been too late. And besides, at my age, it wasn't cost-effective to save my life anyway. After six months of excellent treatment, I was declared cancer-free. In England it's more likely I would have gotten a government paid-for funeral.
Yet that is the system the Brits call "American-style" health care, always accompanied by a sneer. I am hardly rich, and my company-provided health insurance ran out just about the time I received the dread diagnosis. But after paying into the system for 52 years, I had Medicare to pick up most of the costs, and Part D coverage for the doctor visits. Sure, I had some hefty out-of-pocket, but what good is a "free" health care system that simply lets you die from poor treatment?
The Brits are protecting a system for everyone which compares somewhat unfavorably to our "free" healthcare system. It's called Medicaid, it's at least as efficient as the NHS, and it takes care of those who chose not to have health care insurance or couldn't afford it. It even covers non-citizens and those in the country illegally. Our backup poverty health "insurance" is as good as the one-size-fits-all NHS. But of course if you want deluxe accommodations, a private room, and a top-notch hospital, you can always have a good private insurance plan, or if you're rich enough, just pay for it yourself. That option is not available in England.
Obamacare incorporates all the flaws of NHS, then complicates it by pretending to preserve private insurance. Giving everyone the same health care doesn't improve health care for the poor, it ruins health care for those who plan, insure, and set aside money for medical emergencies. Our system has flaws that conscientious Republicans are trying to address with little cooperation from the Democrats. Single-payer Canadian type insurance is the left's goal, but even the Canadian system operates more efficiently than the British NHS.
We've discussed options for improving our current system several times on this site. But replacing a slightly-flawed system with a monstrosity like the NHS is simply not an option for free Americans. The final goal of Obamacare is to do exactly that. The Brits have lived too long with a failed system and as a result damn any health care reform as being "American-style." They should be so lucky. Even the Los Angeles Times sees the humor in that.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Boiler Boiler, Toil and Trouble. . .
There is an old saying that God watches over idiots and drunks. But the arrogantly stupid are another matter. In fact, the universe seems to love messing with those people, and it LOVES ironic punishments. Take the case of Britain, a leading proponent of global warming, and the “condensing boiler.”Five years ago, drunk with self-righteousness, New Labor passed a law outlawing existing boiler technology. In its place, New Labor decreed that the people would use condensing boilers. Thus, it became illegal to install any kind of boiler other than a condensing boiler. Consequently, eight million of these things have been put into service in Britain, and every year another 1.2 million of the old ones are scrapped.
The reason for this change was simple: global warming must be real, despite the science to the contrary, because all the right people say it is. By forcing people to install condensing boilers instead of the old kind favored by the ignorant masses, everyone would save money in the long run on fuel bills and the country’s carbon footprint would be reduced.
Here’s why. A regular boiler produces hot gases when the methane fuel is burned off to heat water for radiators, dishwashers, tap water, etc. Around 25% of that heat vents out the exhaust pipe in the form of steam and evil CO2. But a condensing boiler captures that steam, lets it condense back into water, and returns it to the system. According to advocates, this should increase the efficiency of the units from 75% to 93% and will thereby lower fuel bills and reduce carbon emissions. Hurray! Praise the maker!
But something went wrong between the drawing board and reality.
First, these things cost around £2,000, which is a lot more than the older versions. Indeed, assuming the fuel bill savings are as advertised, it will take ten years to make up the price difference over the older models. BUT... these things don’t last ten years. According to a plumbers association in London, the boilers are only likely to last three to six years, whereas the old ones lasted twenty years. Moreover, the replacement parts are so expensive that it’s usually cheaper just to replace a broken unit than it is to have it repaired.
Secondly, these things don’t work as advertised. For the water to condense, it needs to be below 55 degrees Celsius. But the steam typically produced is around 65 degrees Celsius. To fix this, customers either need to buy over-sized radiators for their homes (thereby wiping out the environmental efficiency benefits) or pipes need to be installed into the walls and floors to let the steam cool. This can cost thousands of pounds.
Third, the condensed water vapor is often acidic, as it contains nitrogen and sulphur oxides, and will corrode the boiler components and lead to breakdowns.
But the biggest, most ironic problem of them all was exposed over the past few weeks. See, it turns out that while this steam is racing through these pipes to cool off and condense, the cold air from a particularly cold winter. . . like the one they are having at the moment despite claims that global warming would end such weather forever. . . will cause the condensed water to freeze up into ice. This blocks the pipes. Once the boiler senses the blockage, it shuts down.Yep. No heat.
In Yorkshire alone this past week, very angry British people called British Gas to come fix 60,000 units because they froze up. The cost of these plumber visits ran between £200 to £300 per visit, plus 20% VAT tax.
So think of the irony: a record cold snap that should no longer exist according to global warming enthusiasts, is destroying heaters that are being foisted on people by those same enthusiasts for the sole purpose of stopping the global warming that isn’t coming. Way to not-solve a non-problem! If that isn’t the definition of irony, then I don’t know what is.
Moreover, this technology that was meant to save the planet costs more and ultimately pollutes more (when you consider the scrapage and the cost of replacing units more frequently) than the tried and true technologies it was meant to replace. In other words, the enthusiasts made the very problem they are combating worse.
Nice huh?
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
1979-1980/2010-2012. . . History Repeating?
Ronald Reagan became President at a low point for the United States. Our economy was failing, our military was neglected, our politics were poisonous, and our nation was demoralized. Over the next few years, Ronald Reagan turned all of that around. But even before Reagan brought us Reaganomics, Margaret Thatcher was beating Reagan to the punch, with similar stunning results. Well, our two countries feel a lot like 1979 again, and once again the British are showing us the way out of this mess.In two short years, the Democrats have made a royal mess of our country. They’ve wasted trillions of dollars we could not afford, they’ve created what appears to be a permanent structural deficit, they’ve demoralized our foreign policy, they’ve disgraced our political system, and they’ve put the public on the verge of revolt. Labor did the same thing to Britain. But Britain is now turning this around.
When the British replaced their Labor government with a Conservative/Liberal coalition, few expected much in the way of reform. The Conservatives were led by David Cameron, who seems more like an effete elitist than a reputable leader. Indeed, his claim to fame before being elected was to rid the Conservatives of most of their ideology and to turn them into Tony Blair impersonators. His coalition partners, the Liberals, are a confused jumble of socialists and civil libertarians. That’s hardly the recipe for daring achievements. Yet, that is exactly what they are doing. Consider this:
1. Facing a $245 billion deficit (11.4% of GNP), the government issued a dramatic budget containing previously unthinkable cuts. Government agencies will be cut by 19% on average, 500,000 government jobs will be eliminated, welfare benefits will be cut, a middle class child credit will disappear, the retirement age will rise from 65 to 66, college tuition and train fares will rise, and so on. The only two errors were to exempt the National Health Service from cuts and to increase spending on foreign aid.
This is an incredible budget for a coalition that can hardly be called fiscal hawks and whose members range from both fringes to the squishy middle. So when our media is throwing up their hands trying to explain why not one penny of federal spending can be cut, keep Britain's example in mind. This is a blue print for the United States.
2. The government plans to cut overall immigration from 196,000 a year to below 100,000 by 2015. To achieve that, they’ve just imposed a 20% cut in the number of non-Europeans allowed to work in the U.K., cut the number of visas granted to foreign students, and will impose a minimum standard for English proficiency on marriage visas.
The focus on student visa (which account for 60% of immigration) is the result of many “students” coming to England but not actually working on degree programs, and of concerns that some “schools” are simply schemes to exploit student visas to get immigrants into the country -- and which may provide a gateway for terrorists to enter the U.K. Thus, the new government also will begin stringent background checks into the credentials of schools that offer visas to overseas students, and will give a preference to students in degree programs.
3. The government is completely reforming British schools. For example, they are dismantling the system put in place by Labor where students could get non-academic qualifications (like certificates in “sports leadership”) as a substitute for traditional subjects. They will grade schools on the performance of their students in English, math, science, history or geography, and a modern or ancient language. Moreover, teachers will need to pass math and English aptitude tests. Principals will be given more powers to restrain violent pupils, put students in detention, and search them for mobile phones. Also, about 400 schools will be taken over. Further, they have introduced a program to train soldiers to become teachers with the idea that they have the experience to teach students and to improve classroom discipline. Finally, they are planning reforms to “drive out ‘trendy’ learning methods” brought in under Labor.
That’s not a bad start for a coalition that wasn’t supposed to do much of anything, and it is a lesson for our country. Right now, people are ready for a radical remake of the current system. They don’t want to hear, “we don’t know how to cut the budget.” They don’t want fake 10 year plans where the cuts never come. They don’t want public sector employees to keep getting raises and untouchable jobs when their own jobs are hanging by a thread. They don’t want unchecked immigration. And they don’t want to double down on the liberal stupidity that has ruined the public schools.
If a coalition of quasi-Euro-socialists, actual socialists, and libertarians can do this, then so can the Republicans. It won’t happen until Obama is gone in 2012, but it’s time to start now and to fully implement what we start when the new Republican president takes office in 2012. Anyone promising less than that, need not apply.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Sometimes A Mascot Is Just A Cigar
You should not read this post unless you are at least 18 years old, and you have a greater sense of humor than the British people. Seriously, don’t read this if you don’t like “questionable” words and images. This post is not for children. . . it’s about the London 2012 Olympic Mascots.
Holy sh*t! Take a look at the picture on the right:
What you are seeing are the new mascots unveiled yesterday by the London 2012 Olympic Committee. These things supposedly represent Britain better than anything else they could think of. . . like Big Ben, a bulldog, or a Mohammed.
The one on the left, flipping the Hitler salute, is called “Wenlock,” a common British name that means “Binge Drinking.” The one on the right is called “Mandeville,” another common British name that means “Dental Problems.”
According to Lord “Cocky” Coe, chairman of the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic games, Binge Drinking and Dental Problems will “inspire young people to engage with sport.” By which he means, they will make kids think of athletic supporters.
It will come as no surprise that these two mascots have not gone over too well with the public. Here are some samples of the comments people left when these were unveiled. Some pondered what they could be:
God shave the Queen.
[+] Read More...
Holy sh*t! Take a look at the picture on the right:
What you are seeing are the new mascots unveiled yesterday by the London 2012 Olympic Committee. These things supposedly represent Britain better than anything else they could think of. . . like Big Ben, a bulldog, or a Mohammed.
The one on the left, flipping the Hitler salute, is called “Wenlock,” a common British name that means “Binge Drinking.” The one on the right is called “Mandeville,” another common British name that means “Dental Problems.”
According to Lord “Cocky” Coe, chairman of the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic games, Binge Drinking and Dental Problems will “inspire young people to engage with sport.” By which he means, they will make kids think of athletic supporters.
It will come as no surprise that these two mascots have not gone over too well with the public. Here are some samples of the comments people left when these were unveiled. Some pondered what they could be:
“Is it Mohammed?”Some questioned the design:
“Why is the handicapped one wearing crotchless chaps?”Some questioned the practical value to the taxpayers:
“Has the one in blue gone and soiled itself?”
“Another fine joke played on the long-suffering British taxpayer.”But then some began to see through the carnage to the evil intent:
“How can they spend all that money on this and the Olympics while there are politicians out there who need more money to waste?”
“This is obviously a cynical attempt by the Olympic Committee to steal viewers from the Gay Games.”And finally came acceptance:
“I, for one, welcome our new one-eyed overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted university researcher I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.”But some still debate whether these truly represent Britain:
“Because nothing says ‘Britain’ like a creepy bipedal showerhead/penis thing with lobster claws.”But is that fair? They certainly don’t represent all of Britain, but they do an excellent job of hitting some of the recent highlights. Consider that:
• The eyes are indeed camera lenses, which represent the surveillance cameras that spy on everything and everyone in the UK.So all in all, it’s hard to complain about these mascots, even though there are many things that would have been more representative of Britain. They could have chosen a Big Ben-like mascot called “Huge Benjamin,” or a British Bulldog called “Bully,” or a binge-drunk teen called “Bingey,” a stuffed Prince of Charles, or a knife-wielding soccer fan called “Hooli,” or a turban wearing radical Imam called “Mohammed.” So many better choices. . .
• The bulge -- no, not that bulge, look higher -- is a nod to England's growing obesity.
• The design on Wenlock’s t-shirt, which some claim looks like one box creature giving oral sex to another box creature (see right), actually represents vomit, and thereby is inclusive of all the youthful binge drinkers that make up most of Britain.
• The no-hands thing is a nod to the loss of manufacturing jobs, and their replacement with knife-like claws vaguely recalls Britain’s proud tradition of knife crime.
• Finally, the penis shape is stolen from Greece, which was the first to use walking penises as mascots for the Olympics (see left). This represents solidarity with Greece, whose debt the British have lately begun to emulate.
God shave the Queen.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Labour's Legacy: not-so-Great Britain
With David Cameron taking over the UK as part of the first coalition government since World War II, I thought it might be worth pointing out a couple of interesting facts about the 13 year misrule of Labour, as we seem to be heading down the same path. . . only faster.When Labour came to power in 1997, the Conservatives left them a “golden economic inheritance,” despite a recent recession. National output was growing, unemployment was falling, government finances were improving, and Britain had regained its place among the important players in the world. Over the next thirteen years, Labour put their leftist stamp on Britain. Of their efforts, Brown said this in his resignation announcement:
A greater Britain huh? Ok, let’s check out Labour's legacy. . .“[I] loved the job, not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony, which I do not love at all. No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous, more just -- truly a greater Britain.”
So there you have it, the leftist legacy of Gordon Brown and his socialist Labour Party. Thumbs up folks! Unfortunately, Obama seems determined to achieve the same results in his short four years.1. Out of Control Debt: When Labour came to power, Britain’s debt was a horrific 44% of GDP. Bad Conservatives! Labor promised they would be “wise spenders, not big spenders.” Thirteen years later, Britain’s debt is now 68% of GDP and its deficits are 11.6% of GDP. . . Greece levels (though not quite Obama levels).
2. Edukation: Labour doubled secondary school spending and introduced various reforms. And the results: the number of 16 to 18 year olds who go on to college remained unchanged at a pathetic 18% -- this compares to 52.7% of Americans who have “some college” and 27.3% of Americans who actually hold college degrees. Moreover, vast numbers of British graduates can’t read. And Britain has slipped down international education rankings from 13th to 22nd out of 32.
3. Ill Health: Labour doubled the amount spent on health care. For its efforts, it proudly trumpets its results: “almost all patients now are seen within 18 weeks by their doctors.” No, that’s no typo. . . 18 weeks. . .126 days.
4. Welfare Non-Reform: In 1999, five million Britons lived on state benefits. After 13 years, that number hasn’t changed. What’s more, a shocking 85% of the jobs created in Britain since 1997 went to foreigners!
5. Income Inequality: Leftists love to whine how unfair capitalism is. When Labour came to power, they promised to make Britain more fair. But by the Gini coefficient, a measure of how income is spread throughout a population, Britain is at a record high and is easily the most unfair in Europe.
6. Childhood Poverty: In 1999, three million children lived in poverty. Labour promised to end that. This year, 3.6 million children lived in poverty, more than before Labour started.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, April 22, 2010
(Un)Exempting Churches From Gay Rights Laws
One of the concerns religious groups raise whenever they are confronted with gay rights laws is that they will be forced to condone something they consider immoral. “Nonsense!” say the proponents of these laws, “we’ll exempt religious organizations from the law.” Well, England has now shown exactly what those exemptions are worth, and churches are right to be concerned -- especially since British leftism eventually infests our left as well.Some time ago, England passed laws forbidding discrimination against homosexuals in hiring. At the time, those laws included an exemption for religious groups that consider homosexuality immoral. In the past month, the British Labour Party has tried to pass a law “clarifying” those exemptions. What they tried should send up huge red flags to anyone who thinks that people have the right to maintain their own beliefs.
Specifically, Labour tried to pass a law that expanded the anti-hiring-discrimination laws to all aspects of religious organizations, except for the hiring of clerical personnel. That's right, everyone except the actual priests, ministers, rabbis, shamans or imams.
Calling this a “cautious aim” and “fairly modest,” The Economist said:
Oh, is that all? So churches have the right to their beliefs, but they can only exercise those rights in rare occasions -- when it comes to choosing actual priests. For all other jobs, they need to follow the beliefs established by the government, instead of their own?“[The government] was not questioning the right of religious bodies to follow their own beliefs when hiring priests or imams; it merely wanted to clarify that, in recruiting for non-religious jobs (accountants, for example), churches must obey the law and refrain from discrimination against gays.”
Does anyone see a problem with this? The Economist surely doesn't because they don't really believe churches should be doing this. But I wonder how they would feel if we looked at this principle more broadly. Indeed, while we’re busy defining when you can and can’t exercise your beliefs, why stop with sexual orientation? Why do we allow religious discrimination for example? Shouldn't we force churches to hire atheists? So long as we don’t require them to hire atheistic priests, then we aren’t really questioning their right to follow their own beliefs, are we?
No doubt The Economist would approve of that because they have over the years shown a pretty clear dislike for Christianity. But Christianity isn't the only religion. Maybe we should force Mosques to employ Jews and Synagogues to hire Muslims? I can't see why this would be a problem so long as they were free to pick their own imams and rabbis?
By the way, if you think this can't be a problem, let me point out part of an argument before the Supreme Court this week. In a case where the court is deciding whether universities can ban Christian groups who refuse to admit gay members, one of the justices asked the representative for the gay group: if we don't let the Christian group control its own membership, what keeps others who disagree with their views from flooding into the group and voting themselves into the leadership and, basically, taking over the group? The answer: well, they could go form a new group if that happened. Seriously? Ok, let's run with that...
With that in mind, let's not forget that these laws apply well beyond religious institutions as well. So shouldn't gay groups be forced to hire devout Catholics and Muslims. . . except for their most senior positions of course. Though, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why we should exempt their senior positions as those aren't "religious" positions, are they? And while we're on a roll, why shouldn't pro-abortion groups be required to hire devout Roman Catholics? Shouldn't feminist groups be required to hire devout Muslims? And if not, why not. . . as The Economist says, it’s not like this will interfere with their beliefs. And if they don't like it, they can just go form another group, right?
Seriously, this shows the left’s promises for what they are: lies. They promise an exemption and then quickly redefine the exemption into absurdity and then eliminate it all together.
It also show the danger of letting the government decide what you can believe and when you can act on those beliefs. If we take this law seriously, then no group can be safe from a determined opposition seeking to infiltrate the group and destroy its message. . . all sanctioned with the force of law.
If you believe, as I do, that people have the right to their own beliefs, be they right, wrong, stupid, offensive or otherwise, then this is the sort of thing that should scare you: the government telling you when you can and cannot exercise your beliefs.
And if these things do happen, then activists on the right should get their resumes ready. It's open season on leftist interest groups!
[+] Read More...
Thursday, April 8, 2010
False Analogy Coming Up
On May 6th, the British will hold an election. The prevailing wisdom says the Conservatives are going to win. I think that’s wrong. If I’m right, and the Conservatives lose, expect our media to go insane trying to equate that upset with what they hope will happen here in November. In fact, expect to find yourself awash in a tidal wave of “bad omen for Republicans” stories. Don’t believe it.Let’s start by explaining why everyone thinks the Conservatives will win. Labour’s been in power since 1997 and they are worn out. All of their mistakes have caught up to them, and the people are sick of them. They spent too much, reformed too little and let bureaucracy spin out of control. Add in that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is neither telegenic, nor politically savvy, and he’s prone to nasty streaks and gloom, and you have a serious recipe for failure. And polls have confirmed this, with Labour trailing the Conservatives by as much as 21%. Hence, it’s inevitable.
Thus, should Labour win the election, the media will call it a miracle. They will frame this as an “utter rejection of Conservative ideas”, and will tell us that this represents “an end to the shift to the right” that the world has undertaken during the past two years, and a “rebirth” of the left. Then our media will pick this up and will start trying to draw an analogy here: unpopular government, makes hard decisions, but people are “really” upset about the economy, which is getting better. . . = surprise Democratic victory!!!
But don’t be fooled because there is more to this story than is being currently told. Indeed, I wouldn’t be suggesting that the Conservatives are likely to lose if there weren’t.
First, the Conservatives are not exactly all that great of a party. The British haven’t liked them since Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office. Since that time, they’ve had a succession of bland leaders who stood for nothing, except the disowning of Thatcherism. That’s left them with little real support. Moreover, their new leader, David Cameron, is hardly inspirational. He’s milquetoast defined. He stands for nothing. He’s the ultimate “me too only not as much” type leader. Indeed, he proposes to do everything Labour is doing, only not as fast. That makes them very different than the Republicans. Indeed, whereas we face left versus right in November, the British May elections will be a battle royale between left and further left.
Secondly, in the past twelve years, the British people have slunk into dependence. Many more of them than ever rely on the government for their survival. Their entrepreneurial class is gone. Foreigners run their companies, those that are left, and industry has all but vanished. In the place of the once industrious British people, a whole class of angry white trash has sprung up that demands the government support its binge-drinking, knife-wielding, non-working habits. Thus, the English electorate is more like that of New Jersey than that of the United States, and elections there have little meaning for elections here.
Third, that 21% number isn’t what it appears to be. That number occurred at the height of the financial crisis. Since that time, it’s fallen to around a 9% lead for the Conservatives. This is partially the result of the financial crisis lessening, but also partially fatigue. Voters have been told for two years now that the Conservatives would win the election. People tire of what they assume to be a sure thing and they move on, which hurts the Conservatives and gives Labour a second chance -- basically, they peaked too soon.
But no doubt, you’re still thinking that 9% should be a pretty huge victory right? Actually, no. There is a quirk in the English electoral system that favors Labour because of the way their districts are established and the utter lack of competitiveness by the Conservatives in Scotland. What this translates into is that the Conservatives need to poll about 11% higher than Labour nationally to guarantee a Conservative victory. If the election were held today, it is estimated that their 9% lead would translate only into a draw in Parliament.
Talking all of this into account, there is a very good chance that the Conservatives will win the popular vote, but still not win the government. Or, perhaps, they will win the government but just barely. But in either event, the result tells us nothing about our own elections in November.
So don’t be fooled, when you start seeing articles asking what Labour’s resurgence means for the Democrats.
It doesn't mean squat.
[+] Read More...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama Drops A Bomb
President Barack Obama is congratulated by his fellow UN peacemakers for ending the nuclear arms race, bringing love and brotherhood to the world, and starting the final dismantling of the weapons which previously threatened to destroy the planet. Presiding over the UN Security Council, Obama single-handedly brought about non-proliferation and the destruction of all existing nuclear devices. And you thought he wasn't the Messiah!Don't take my word for it. Here's what the AP had to say about it: "With Obama presiding, the Security Council endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with undiminished security for all." See? I told you. The Los Angeles Times jumped in with: "The vote gave Obama an early, first step toward his ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons after weeks and months of negotiations."
The resident news agency in the White House, ABC World News, said Obama returned to the United Nations today and spoke of his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that aims toward that goal." "Imagine," as John Lennon said. CBS and NBC hopped on the bandwagon to point out that even Russia and China signed onto the resolution that slashes the arsenals of nations that have them, and stopping the spread to those who don't. NBC added: "The President is carving out a sweeping new foreign policy vision." Well, NBC, it's not really new, it's just the first time a President presided over the Security Council and pushed such a ridiculous and dangerous idea in the belief that any dictator was actually going to abide by it. Russia and China signed on, and we all know how trustworthy they are.
Hark! I think I just heard a discouraging word! The Washington Post was a bit more forthright writing about the reactions of some of the other permanent members of the Security Council. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the whole exercise is a charade, and a forceful reminder to the president that for all his grand ideas and plans, a difficult and dangerous world stands in the way." If the president really wanted to do anything practical toward reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, why did Obama personally see to it that the words specifically referring to North Korea and Iran were removed from the final draft of the resolution? You're not going to get very far in arms reduction and non-proliferation by being afraid of offending rogue states.
Bloomberg News says: "The text doesn't cite Iran [or North Korea] by name, an omission reflecting the difficulty [Obama] will have in achieving a similar consensus on pressuring Iran [and North Korea] to avoid creating or using nuclear weapons." But that doesn't stop the deaf, dumb and blind New York Times from gushing that Obama "moved Thursday to tighten the noose around Iran, North Korea and other nations that have exploited gaping loopholes in the patchwork of global nuclear regulations." By purposefully removing the names of the two rogue nations from the resolution? Liberal wisdom is truly strange. And Obama said nary a word about "tightening up regulations," let alone any kind of serious enforcement. I guess his good intentions will have to do.
Once again, Sarkozy laid it out rather well: "How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them (Iran and North Korea). We live in the real world. And the real world expects us to make decisions and enforce them." For all our carping about France, Sarkozy not only makes a good point, but has good reason to say it. America at least has major armed forces. France has only token forces--and the bomb (and effective ways to deliver it). Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by inaction and cowardice while expecting France to give hers up offends even a Francophobe like me.
The tone-deaf and outrageously arrogant Obama had attempted to prove how important he was when he said: "I called this summit to make sure that we have a clear path to non-proliferation and the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide." What a twit! He didn't call any "summit." It was the regular opening day session of the Security Council. And all he had done was take the chair, after removing Iran [and North Korea] from the agenda so that it would be an airy-fairy meaningless resolution instead of a real attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear.
Meanwhile, Russia has been a stumbling block in the way of imposing meaningful sanctions against Iran. After the Security Council resolution was passed, neither Putin nor UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov indicated any change in Russia's opposition to sanctions against Iran (it is well-known that those two are the real policy-makers, while Prime Minister Medvedev is just a happy-face nonentity in Russian affairs). So if you thought that this was the "secret trade-off" Obama would get for dumping our nuclear defense shield in Eastern Europe, you were sadly mistaken, and foolishly optimistic (much like Obama).
The US-drafted resolution called for "further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament to achieve a world without nuclear weapons and urged all countries that have not signed the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty to do so." Of course, the resolution failed to include mandatory provisions that would have rquired nuclear weapons states to take concrete disarmament steps.
China is one of the signers of the grand resolution. So I guess everything's OK with them, right? Well here's what Chinese President Hu Jintao said after the resolution passed: "We will continue to keep our nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security, and make efforts to advance the international disarmament process." And perhaps Obama never heard what Barry Goldwater had to say about China before it went nuclear: "The idea of a billion Chinese armed only with their bare fists scares the hell out of me." Which basically explains the problem with the whole disarmament resolution. Assuming that all the nations actually did comply, and nukes disappeared from the face of the earth, America now becomes a beautiful country, loaded with industry and natural resources, just ripe for the People's Army to march on in. No nuclear wasteland to have to deal with, just pristine new territory for the People's Republic to take over by good old-fashioned invasion.
Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom expressed his dismay at the removal of Iran and North Korea from the specifics of the resolution. "If the President intended for this to be meaningful action, why remove the two nations at which it was originally aimed and eliminate the immediate possibility that this resolution will be a work of serious diplomacy instead of a great exposition on a world we will probably never see." Gee, we were asking ourselves the same question way back when Obama's mouthpiece at the UN, Susan Rice, announced that the rogue states were being removed from the wording of the original resolution.
The Great Peacemaker said "the United States refrained from naming countries in the resolution to avoid disagreements with Russia and China." It's a really bad day when England and France both take stronger stands on rogue nations than the United States. And his statement was not entirely true anyway. The resolution, as originally written before Obama got hold of it, did not "refrain from mentioning." Obama purposely and dangerously removed both named terrorist states from the final resolution that he presented to the Security Council.
By the way, Mr. Obama, you love the idea of getting every nation which hasn't signed on to the non-proliferation treaty to do so now. Well then, what about the fact that North Korea did, and then simply announced that it was withdrawing in 2003 when its nuclear development had come to fruition while it was supposedly not doing anything of the kind? Should the United States start dismantling its nuclear weapons on faith? Only to find out that the rogue states were "just kidding?" It doesn't happen, and it's the reason that the original resolution specifically targeted both Iran and North Korea.
And finally, there's the newly-revitalized Russia. Even after the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the spinoff of former satellite states as Russia tried to come back from the brink of total physical and emotional exhaustion, Mr. Putin's nuclear arsenal remains nearly as formidable as ever. The chart to the left shows the growth and diminution of the American-Russian nuclear weapons caches from the beginning of the cold war to today. It's not a comforting picture.So let's get down to the real nitty-gritty. What exactly did Obama intend to get out of his grandiose plan and successful unanimous resolution? As the Washington Post puts it: "Obama departed New York on Thursday afternoon for the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh with reassurances of his global popularity. His address to the General Assembly on Wednesday was greeted with frequent applause; even long-time antagonists of the United States, includding Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, had kind words for him." In other words, he got just what he wanted. Absolutely nothing concrete, but now his worshippers have spread from little backwards America out to the entire world.
Addendum: After this article was written, more news came to the public attention regarding the nuclear nonproliferation efforts of the Security Council. They obviously don't work. Late afternoon (west coast time), Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarcozy called a special press conference during the G-20 conference to announce (surprise, surprise) that Iran is much farther along in its nuclear enrichment program than previously thought. The tipoff was an entire previously unknown and very sophisticated nuclear lab. Brown said that the U.N. Security Council needed to take immediate and meaningful action against Iran. Sarkozy also added that Iranian assets should be frozen in all banks throughout the world. Obama said "Looky, that isn't really good news."
Reacting to their comments on the discovery and proposed action, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said "Obama will regret it." Do you get it yet, Mr. President? Your weakness and vacillation and dangerous acceptance of the word of dictators is greeted with nothing but contempt. Brown and Sarkozy propose immediate and serious action against Iran, and who does Ahmadenijad threaten? You. Wake up before it's too late. He knows the other two leaders won't cave in to threats, but he also knows you will do anything to avoid a confrontation that might make you unpopular in the Muslim world.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Dark Ages (Redux)
A few years back, a group of environmentalists decided to see what would happen if you thrust a country back into the Dark Ages. They chose Britain, possibly because the British were too busy stabbing each other and binge-drinking themselves into a stupor to notice. With nary a hint of protest, the environmentalists set their plan into motion. Now the free range chickens have come home to roost.
Here’s what happened. Beginning in the 1990s, the Labor government started a concerted effort to destroy the British power grid in the name of stopping global warming. . . er climate change. . . er the next ice age.
Noting that coal and nuclear power plants account for about 45% of all power generated in Britain, Labor chose those forms of power as the best place to start. So they made it virtually impossible to build nuclear plants. Then they made it unprofitable to run existing coal-fired plants, and finally they all but forbade the construction of new coal-fired plants. And here is what they’ve achieved:
Britain currently gets around 13% of its electricity from nuclear plants. But most of their nuclear plants are simply too old to carry on. Indeed, half of their existing nuclear plants have already been shut down and the remaining plants will soon follow. The last one should be closed by 2023. New nuclear plants are planned, but the earliest one of those could be up and running is 2017, and that’s probably insanely optimistic.
Britain also gets around 31% of its electricity from coal-fired plants, but this will end soon. EU environmental rules require that coal plants be fit with expensive scrubbers or be shut down. But these scrubbers are too expensive to make economic sense. So owners are finding it cheaper to just shut the plants down. Indeed, right now these plants are operating (in a reduced capacity) under an exception that expires in 2015, after which time they will be shut down.
So by 2015, Britain will lose about 44% of its capacity to generate electricity. Alas, they don’t have the capacity to spare. The chart on the left shows the problem. Beginning in 2015, Britain will not be able to generate enough electricity to meet demand. This gap between supply and demand will continue to grow until around 2030, at which point Britain will be able to meet only half of its demand.
What does this mean? Blackouts.
In the 2007, South Africa experienced blackouts because of a moratorium put in place in the 1990s on the building of new power plants. Consequently, the national power company, Eskom, began rolling blackouts, cutting off power for hours at a time. Initially, these blackouts were announced. But they soon discovered that this attracted thieves to the affected neighborhoods, so they stopped announcing them.
Britain will be heading down the same path. So, if burglary is your thing -- and if you live in Britain, we know it is -- you are about to experience a golden age of crime. It will be glorious!
But wait, in all fairness, I don’t want to overstate the problem. The same idiots who caused the problem have a “solution.” They prayed to the Great Unicorn for magical new technologies that will produce the missing electricity without harming the environment. Here is what they got:
Over the next eleven years (fortunately 2015 is more than 11 years away), they intend to build enough maritime windmills to produce 33 Gig Watts of power. Not bad huh? And while many claim that Britains lacks the resources to produce this many windmills, we should not doubt that they can pull this off. After all, Britain is the world’s biggest producer of wind power. In fact, in 2008, Britain produced a whopping 0.6 GW! See, they're almost there. . . only another 98.2% to go!
But there is a catch with this marvelous plan. The government estimates that it’s about to lose 75 GW of power because of all these plant closures (failures). Thus, even if Plan Quixote works, it will still come up 42 GW short. . . actually, that’s not true. There’s another problem I haven’t mentioned yet. It turns out that windmills don’t work on calm days. I know, knock you over with a feather! Even the government estimates that 25 GW of potential from windmills will only be able to replace 5 GW of fossil-fuel fired power. Thus, to plug the gap with wind, the Brits need to produce 375 GW of wind power -- more than ten times what they’re building. It would seem, the Great Unicorn has failed them?
And this doesn’t even account for the fact that their oil and gas fired plants are running out of fuel as their North Sea reserves run dry (they peaked in 1999).
Yet, there is an out. When the darkness and the cold become unbearable and the number of patients dying in the dark in hospitals increases well beyond its currently high levels, the Brits can start building gas-fired plants. And to fuel those plants, they can call upon old reliable, dependable Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, that will be expensive and will wreak havoc on anyone who pays for their own electricity, partly because the prices will vary dramatically day by day, and partly because Putin loves him some predatory pricing. But it should keep the lights on most of the time. And so what if it makes Britain dependent on Russia. Economic slavery sure beats global warming. . . cooling. . . whatever.
Of course, there is something else they could do. They could burn environmentalists and Labor MPs to keep warm.
[+] Read More...
Here’s what happened. Beginning in the 1990s, the Labor government started a concerted effort to destroy the British power grid in the name of stopping global warming. . . er climate change. . . er the next ice age.
Noting that coal and nuclear power plants account for about 45% of all power generated in Britain, Labor chose those forms of power as the best place to start. So they made it virtually impossible to build nuclear plants. Then they made it unprofitable to run existing coal-fired plants, and finally they all but forbade the construction of new coal-fired plants. And here is what they’ve achieved:
Britain currently gets around 13% of its electricity from nuclear plants. But most of their nuclear plants are simply too old to carry on. Indeed, half of their existing nuclear plants have already been shut down and the remaining plants will soon follow. The last one should be closed by 2023. New nuclear plants are planned, but the earliest one of those could be up and running is 2017, and that’s probably insanely optimistic.
Britain also gets around 31% of its electricity from coal-fired plants, but this will end soon. EU environmental rules require that coal plants be fit with expensive scrubbers or be shut down. But these scrubbers are too expensive to make economic sense. So owners are finding it cheaper to just shut the plants down. Indeed, right now these plants are operating (in a reduced capacity) under an exception that expires in 2015, after which time they will be shut down.
So by 2015, Britain will lose about 44% of its capacity to generate electricity. Alas, they don’t have the capacity to spare. The chart on the left shows the problem. Beginning in 2015, Britain will not be able to generate enough electricity to meet demand. This gap between supply and demand will continue to grow until around 2030, at which point Britain will be able to meet only half of its demand.What does this mean? Blackouts.
In the 2007, South Africa experienced blackouts because of a moratorium put in place in the 1990s on the building of new power plants. Consequently, the national power company, Eskom, began rolling blackouts, cutting off power for hours at a time. Initially, these blackouts were announced. But they soon discovered that this attracted thieves to the affected neighborhoods, so they stopped announcing them.
Britain will be heading down the same path. So, if burglary is your thing -- and if you live in Britain, we know it is -- you are about to experience a golden age of crime. It will be glorious!
But wait, in all fairness, I don’t want to overstate the problem. The same idiots who caused the problem have a “solution.” They prayed to the Great Unicorn for magical new technologies that will produce the missing electricity without harming the environment. Here is what they got:
Over the next eleven years (fortunately 2015 is more than 11 years away), they intend to build enough maritime windmills to produce 33 Gig Watts of power. Not bad huh? And while many claim that Britains lacks the resources to produce this many windmills, we should not doubt that they can pull this off. After all, Britain is the world’s biggest producer of wind power. In fact, in 2008, Britain produced a whopping 0.6 GW! See, they're almost there. . . only another 98.2% to go!
But there is a catch with this marvelous plan. The government estimates that it’s about to lose 75 GW of power because of all these plant closures (failures). Thus, even if Plan Quixote works, it will still come up 42 GW short. . . actually, that’s not true. There’s another problem I haven’t mentioned yet. It turns out that windmills don’t work on calm days. I know, knock you over with a feather! Even the government estimates that 25 GW of potential from windmills will only be able to replace 5 GW of fossil-fuel fired power. Thus, to plug the gap with wind, the Brits need to produce 375 GW of wind power -- more than ten times what they’re building. It would seem, the Great Unicorn has failed them?
And this doesn’t even account for the fact that their oil and gas fired plants are running out of fuel as their North Sea reserves run dry (they peaked in 1999).
Yet, there is an out. When the darkness and the cold become unbearable and the number of patients dying in the dark in hospitals increases well beyond its currently high levels, the Brits can start building gas-fired plants. And to fuel those plants, they can call upon old reliable, dependable Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, that will be expensive and will wreak havoc on anyone who pays for their own electricity, partly because the prices will vary dramatically day by day, and partly because Putin loves him some predatory pricing. But it should keep the lights on most of the time. And so what if it makes Britain dependent on Russia. Economic slavery sure beats global warming. . . cooling. . . whatever.Of course, there is something else they could do. They could burn environmentalists and Labor MPs to keep warm.
[+] Read More...
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Lies, Damn Lies and British Reporters
Pay no attention to the bureaucrat behind the curtain. Be content. . . fear change. That’s the message to Britons in a propaganda piece written by Guy Adams of The (UK) Independent called “The brutal truth about America’s healthcare.” Adams’ article is intended to console and distract ordinary Britons from the poor state of their own health care system, by trying to convince them of the horrors of the American system.Adams centers his article on a recent event at the Los Angeles Forum, an event he wants his readers to believe is now common in America. The forum which "once hosted Madonna concerts," and apparently never will again, was offering a free medical clinic over the past eight days. Or, as Adams describes this spectacle of Americana, the Forum has become “a makeshift medical centre,” a “vast field hospital” offering something “so rare” that lines of desperate Americans “snake around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.” He tells us:
They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.Really? Americans walk? In L.A.? How horrible things must have become. Adams must be on to something!
Apparently, all of 1,500 people showed up on the first two days, with as many as 10,000 expected before the event is over! Of course, if you do some basic math, 750 per day for eight days works out to only 6,000 people. But never mind that, it’s the image that counts in propaganda. . . and weak minds love round numbers.
But you know, if you think about it, 10,000 people in LA isn’t that many. Indeed, this weeping line of humanity held down by the jackboot of capitalism represents only 0.08% of the 12.9 million people in the area. That’s only 1 in 1,300 people. That’s hardly the flood one would expect if our system is what Adams claims.
I wonder how many would have shown up if the offer was “free televisions”? Good question. More than 30,000 people showed up for an auto show the year before. Perhaps there is a shortage of automobiles in the US? RoadbamaCare where are you?!!
Ok, so we're not impressed with this weak crowd. But Adams doesn’t rely on this alone. No sir:
Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.Wow, all wrong. First, no one uses the 50 million estimate, even the far left. Most on the left use the 46 million figure, which is really only 37 million when you exclude illegal aliens. Moreover, as we discussed, this figure falls to only 7.3 million when you exclude people who can already get government coverage but don’t and people who can afford coverage by choose not to. Of course, 7.3 million (2.4% of the population) isn’t as scary a statistic as 50 million (16% of the population). . . though it does have the benefit of being true.
Further, Mr. Adams, when you say that many of those who have jobs can’t afford coverage, you seem to be forgetting that 84% of Americans have coverage, with the vast majority getting it through their jobs. Can the British not access Google? Did you not think to look this up?
And another thing, Adams, ObamaCare doesn’t cover dental. . . or eye care, so you might want to stop talking about it. Not to mention that, frankly, no Brit should ever talk about anyone else’s teeth.
But talk about teeth Adams does. Indeed, one of the two women whose sad, sad stories Adams uses to make his propaganda feel real to his simple-minded readers is at the LA event because she needs dental work. The other, an employed grocery store worker, points out that she can’t afford the $200 a month it will cost to get the insurance that her employer provides. It’s a good thing ObamaCare won’t increase the cost of her insurance or her taxes well beyond $200 a month to cover the costs of the plan! No siree. Just ignore the fact that the cost can’t even be fully estimated yet, but is already optimistically estimated to require an additional $460 per month in taxes from every American just to cover existing costs, not even counting the cost of the premiums. Clearly, she'll be better off under ObamaCare.
So with hordes of people huddling together for free dental and eye tests in LA, why can't Obama get traction for his plan? The writing must be on the wall right? Well, according to Adams, it's those evil Republicans who have “seized on public hesitancy over ‘socialised medicine’”. Indeed:
Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.Those dirty right-wing monsters! They had the nerve to brave union thugs to come ask pointed questions that disrupted what was supposed to be a smooth town hall meeting? OMG! Hide under your beds my binge-drunk British friends, the neo-Nazis are coming to take away your blessed National Health Service!! Dick Cheney knows where you live!
Of course, you’d have to be a fool not to wonder how those far, far right extremists managed to get only their agents chosen as speakers, but that’s not the point. The point of propaganda is merely to elicit emotion from the weak minded, like readers of The Independent. And emotion is what you get. The 1000 people who savaged the angelic Mr. Specter are just jackbooted thugs, and they don't represent America. So ignore these 1000 people, because they mean nothing -- 1000 people is too small a number to mean anything.
And how do we know that those 1000 people don't represent the rest of America? Well, Adams tells us, “the packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story.” That’s right, the 750 people in LA, the 1 in 1,300, should be considered representative, but the 1000 in Pennsylvania that tortured and probably sodomized Arlen Specter should not.
But don’t just take Adam’s word for it, he’s got an expert: Stan Brock, the man who put on the little medical shin-dig in Los Angeles, despite the danger that Republican military units might shut him down and make him disappear. Says Brock:
"Back in 1944, the UK government knew there was a serious problem with lack of healthcare for 49.7 million British citizens, of which I was one, so they said 'Hey Mr Nye Bevan, you're the Minister for Health... go fix it'. And so came the NHS. Well, fast forward now 66 years, and we've got about the same number of people, about 49 million people, here in the US, who don't have access to healthcare."Wow! I never knew the problem was so big in the UK in 1944. Indeed, 49.7 million unemployed British citizens today would account for 81% of the current population of the UK. In 1944, it would have accounted for more than 100% of the UK population. You know you’ve got a serious problem when more than 100% of your population lacks health care! I guess that means gangs of doctors were roaming the streets hurting people?
Oh, and don’t worry about bias from Mr. Brock, because he assures us that he is “anxious not to interfere in the potent healthcare debate . . . though he and many other professionals, believe the NHS (Britain’s “health care” system) should provide a benchmark for the future of US healthcare.” Not to mention that he describes himself as “very conservative in my outlook for the whole of my life. I've been described as being about 90,000 miles to the right of Attila the Hun.” What a relief! Clearly, he’s an unbiased observer who can fairly criticize the evil American right.
Did I mention that Brock has no money, no income and no bank account. He spends every day working at charity events, “sleeping on a small rolled-up mat on the floor and living on a diet made up entirely of porridge and fresh fruit.” Some have described him “as a living saint,” which is not the word I would choose.
False religious imagery aside -- ever so popular in propaganda, Adams does finally toss in some statistics to prove. . . something.
Did you know that the US spends 16% of its GDP on health care? The UK only spends 8.4%. And we spend $7,290 per person, whereas the UK only spends $2,992 (which is of course the same statistic repeated differently). Further. . . wait a minute, don't liberals view spending more as a good thing? Are we not thus better than our cheapskate cousins in the UK?
What else has he got? The US has 2.4 doctors per every 1000 people? The UK has 2.5, which is better. Of course, we have 10.6 nurses and they only have 10. Hmmm. Sounds like a wash.
How about this. . . life expectancy in the US is 78 compared to 80 for the UK! The UK wins! The UK wins! And the infant mortality is only 4.8 per 1000, compared to 6.7 for the US. Gooaaaaaaaaal! Thus, ergo facto smuglorem, the UK must be better, right? Well, no. If Adams had read our article on these statistics, or if he understood the concept of research, he would have known that countries like the UK don’t include certain factors in their numbers -- like dead babies. When those are added back in, these figures all become remarkably similar.
Yet, what isn’t similar, and what Adams’ doesn’t seem to mention for reasons that I can’t possibly explain, are the following facts:
• Breast cancer mortality is 88% higher in the UK than in the US.Sounds like the UK has a great system, unless you're sick. So if you live in Britain, keep calling the BBC demanding new seasons of Top Gear, oh, and don’t listen to the ridiculous Mr. Adams.
• Prostate cancer mortality is 604% higher in the UK than in the US.
• Colorectal mortality is 40% higher in the UK than in the US.
• Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases like heart disease. For example, 56% of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs receive them. This compares to 23% of the Britons.
• British patients face waits that are twice as long as those in America.
• The US has 34 CT machines and 27 MRI machines for every million Americans, whereas Britain has only 8 CT machines and 6 MRI machines.
• US consumers get generic drugs at a cost that is 24% less than the average Briton.
• Nor are the Brits all that happy with their system. Just like Americans, more than 70% of Britons report that their health care systems need either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
* All misspellings are Adams'.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, August 13, 2009
TV Review: Top Gear (2002-___)
I am not a gear head. I have no love for engine specifications, I can’t tell you every model Ford ever made, and I would rather shoot myself than watch Motor Week. But I love Top Gear. Contradiction? No, not really, because Top Gear isn’t a car show. Top Gear is an extremely clever comedy farcically disguised as a car show.
What Is Top Gear?
Top Gear, ostensibly, is a British car show. But as the show’s own website explains, “you’ll find no boring stats or impenetrable conversations about camshafts.” And that is because the show is not about cars. The show is about three sarcastic and very witty hosts, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May (aka Captain Slow), who engage in a series of challenges, review the occasional car (often tongue in cheek), and interview a weekly celebrity. It is the dry wit version of Monty Python.
The Challenges
The main highlight of each show is the challenge. These involve the producers sending the three hosts to some far away location, often another country, and giving them some crazy assignment. Some of the more recent challenges, for example, have involved turning cars into boats and trying to cross the English Channel, driving the length of Vietnam (about 1000 miles) in eight days on ancient motorcycles, trying to cross impassible parts of Africa in cars costing less than a few thousand dollars, and "economy racing" from Basel to Liverpool (750 miles) on one tank of gas.
These challenges are extremely well shot and edited, and compare favorably to Michael Palin’s Around The World series. Indeed, these challenges are so well done that they would be fun to watch even if the hosts simply did them earnestly. But they don’t. Instead, they abuse each other the entire time, from saying rude things to pulling pranks. They criticize the cars, the roads, and the countries. And things go very, very wrong.
Best of all, everything about the show is clever, insightful, and really funny -- though like much “typical British humor,” the show is very subtle and you must pay careful attention. For example, in the Vietnam episode, if you listen closely, you will realize that the soundtrack they use comes from Apocalypse Now and many of the references are to war films or are cracks about communism. They won’t tell you this, and they never explain the humor, but it is there if you pay attention.
Great examples of the show's dry wit can be seen in a recent episode in which two of the hosts try to determine if communism ever made a good car. After showing a variety of horrifically poorly built cars (sadly, not available online right now), they race a car made by British union workers, aka "British communism", against a car made by the Russians to determine who would have won the cold war. The British car is the Morris Marina, which Clarkson derisively calls the "Morris Marxist" (he also notes that the "TC" version of the car stood for "Trotskyite Crap"). Finally, they examine some of the luxury cars made by the Soviets, which results in classic quotes like “there is so much space [in the backseat] that you could chop up thirty dissidents“ and Clarkson saying that he would like to demonstrate the cigarette lighter “but unfortunately, we don’t live in a free country."
Or consider this challenge, which really sums up the essence of the show, in which they have been instructed to buy used mid-engine Italian super cars (costing less than £10,000 each), and race them from Bristol to a strip club in Slough. As the race continues, they engage in a series of challenges, through which they discover how poorly these cars have held up over the years. Finally, one by one, these cars break down spectacularly. (See the video here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).
The Reviews
The hosts also will review a car at some point during the show. You’ve never heard of most of these cars. But that’s ok. To review the cars, the hosts typically take them for a drive as they discuss the look and feel of the car and make snarky comments about the manufacturer. See for example the following review of the Nissan Micra for a typical example of how these reviews are done:
When they have had their fun, they turn the car over to their “tame racing driver,” known only as The Stig. The Stig will race the car around their track, after which the car's time is placed on their leader board to determine which car is the fastest.
The identity of the Stig has become one of those mysteries that people try to solve -- like Charlie’s identity on Charlie’s Angels. At one point, the show was forced to reveal that the Stig was in fact formula one racer Michael Schumacher, though there is reason to think this was not true.
During some of the challenges, they have also introduced substitute Stigs, whenever the Stig is unavailable. These have included the ultra fat “Stig’s American cousin,” or the toga-draped “Stig’s African cousin” or the truck driving, one-arm-tanned “Rig Stig.”
In any event, these reviews are always done in a tongue in cheek fashion that keeps them from being boring, even to non-car people. For example, in this episode, after being criticized by a viewer for failing to provide thorough reviews, Clarkson tests/reviews a Ford Fiesta by racing it through a mall as he is chased by a Corvette. Afterwards, the Fiesta incredibly takes part in an amphibious landing on a beach with the British Royal Marines (also not currently available online).
By the way, if you want to see the ultimate in luxury cars, check out this Maybach. And if you want to see the future of cars, check out this Honda Clarity.
The Celebrity In The Reasonably Priced Car
Top Gear also usually includes a celebrity interview. Here’s why. Years ago, a group of politically correct Brits complained that the show focused too much on expensive cars and not enough on reasonably priced cars. The always PC BBC demanded that Top Gear spend more time examining reasonably priced vehicles. The very un-PC Top Gear responded by obtaining a reasonably priced car, and asking celebrity guests to take it for timed laps around their track.
The selection of celebrities is really quite impressive, and includes several Americans, e.g. Christian Slater and Mark Wahlberg. Moreover, Clarkson often manages to ask better questions of these guests than most professional interviewers, like when he trips up the Mayor of London on the (lack of) environmental benefits of electric cars.
Criticisms And Allegations Of Not Being Politically Correct
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Top Gear has been criticized for making some very not-politically correct statements. Gay groups, environmental groups, class warfare types, and other liberal hysterical types have complained bitterly about the show and comments made by the hosts. Others have been upset about statements made about foreign countries. Indeed, the Germans were upset when Clarkson described a car as being “typically German” because “it has a GPS that only points toward Poland and a fan belt that will last 1000 years.” Others were upset about the claim that “the communists were to making cars, what the Germans are to making love.”
They do make the occasional anti-American statement, so be aware of that. But these comments are usually limited to complaints about Americans being fat or the inability of American car companies to make good cars. The Vietnam episode had a couple of comments that were slightly uncomfortable, but were nothing compared to what has come out of the mouth of our own President. And I have yet to hear a political criticism of the USA, except when Clarkson told a visiting American, "welcome to the free world, I think you'll like it here" (though they do hilariously mock the State Department over a visa issue).
In any event, what people seem to miss in making these criticisms, is that everyone gets insulted: the French, the Italians, the Russians, the Americans. . . everyone, and especially their fellow British. None of it is done with animosity.
Conclusion
Top Gear is not what you think it would be from the title or the description of the show found in your tv guide. Give it a chance, you’ll like it. It can currently be seen on BBC America on Monday nights and Saturday afternoons. A new season begins on August 17th (8:00 pm EST).
[+] Read More...
What Is Top Gear?
Top Gear, ostensibly, is a British car show. But as the show’s own website explains, “you’ll find no boring stats or impenetrable conversations about camshafts.” And that is because the show is not about cars. The show is about three sarcastic and very witty hosts, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May (aka Captain Slow), who engage in a series of challenges, review the occasional car (often tongue in cheek), and interview a weekly celebrity. It is the dry wit version of Monty Python.The Challenges
The main highlight of each show is the challenge. These involve the producers sending the three hosts to some far away location, often another country, and giving them some crazy assignment. Some of the more recent challenges, for example, have involved turning cars into boats and trying to cross the English Channel, driving the length of Vietnam (about 1000 miles) in eight days on ancient motorcycles, trying to cross impassible parts of Africa in cars costing less than a few thousand dollars, and "economy racing" from Basel to Liverpool (750 miles) on one tank of gas.
These challenges are extremely well shot and edited, and compare favorably to Michael Palin’s Around The World series. Indeed, these challenges are so well done that they would be fun to watch even if the hosts simply did them earnestly. But they don’t. Instead, they abuse each other the entire time, from saying rude things to pulling pranks. They criticize the cars, the roads, and the countries. And things go very, very wrong.
Best of all, everything about the show is clever, insightful, and really funny -- though like much “typical British humor,” the show is very subtle and you must pay careful attention. For example, in the Vietnam episode, if you listen closely, you will realize that the soundtrack they use comes from Apocalypse Now and many of the references are to war films or are cracks about communism. They won’t tell you this, and they never explain the humor, but it is there if you pay attention.
Great examples of the show's dry wit can be seen in a recent episode in which two of the hosts try to determine if communism ever made a good car. After showing a variety of horrifically poorly built cars (sadly, not available online right now), they race a car made by British union workers, aka "British communism", against a car made by the Russians to determine who would have won the cold war. The British car is the Morris Marina, which Clarkson derisively calls the "Morris Marxist" (he also notes that the "TC" version of the car stood for "Trotskyite Crap"). Finally, they examine some of the luxury cars made by the Soviets, which results in classic quotes like “there is so much space [in the backseat] that you could chop up thirty dissidents“ and Clarkson saying that he would like to demonstrate the cigarette lighter “but unfortunately, we don’t live in a free country."
Or consider this challenge, which really sums up the essence of the show, in which they have been instructed to buy used mid-engine Italian super cars (costing less than £10,000 each), and race them from Bristol to a strip club in Slough. As the race continues, they engage in a series of challenges, through which they discover how poorly these cars have held up over the years. Finally, one by one, these cars break down spectacularly. (See the video here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).
The Reviews
The hosts also will review a car at some point during the show. You’ve never heard of most of these cars. But that’s ok. To review the cars, the hosts typically take them for a drive as they discuss the look and feel of the car and make snarky comments about the manufacturer. See for example the following review of the Nissan Micra for a typical example of how these reviews are done:
When they have had their fun, they turn the car over to their “tame racing driver,” known only as The Stig. The Stig will race the car around their track, after which the car's time is placed on their leader board to determine which car is the fastest.
The identity of the Stig has become one of those mysteries that people try to solve -- like Charlie’s identity on Charlie’s Angels. At one point, the show was forced to reveal that the Stig was in fact formula one racer Michael Schumacher, though there is reason to think this was not true.During some of the challenges, they have also introduced substitute Stigs, whenever the Stig is unavailable. These have included the ultra fat “Stig’s American cousin,” or the toga-draped “Stig’s African cousin” or the truck driving, one-arm-tanned “Rig Stig.”
In any event, these reviews are always done in a tongue in cheek fashion that keeps them from being boring, even to non-car people. For example, in this episode, after being criticized by a viewer for failing to provide thorough reviews, Clarkson tests/reviews a Ford Fiesta by racing it through a mall as he is chased by a Corvette. Afterwards, the Fiesta incredibly takes part in an amphibious landing on a beach with the British Royal Marines (also not currently available online).
By the way, if you want to see the ultimate in luxury cars, check out this Maybach. And if you want to see the future of cars, check out this Honda Clarity.
The Celebrity In The Reasonably Priced Car
Top Gear also usually includes a celebrity interview. Here’s why. Years ago, a group of politically correct Brits complained that the show focused too much on expensive cars and not enough on reasonably priced cars. The always PC BBC demanded that Top Gear spend more time examining reasonably priced vehicles. The very un-PC Top Gear responded by obtaining a reasonably priced car, and asking celebrity guests to take it for timed laps around their track.
The selection of celebrities is really quite impressive, and includes several Americans, e.g. Christian Slater and Mark Wahlberg. Moreover, Clarkson often manages to ask better questions of these guests than most professional interviewers, like when he trips up the Mayor of London on the (lack of) environmental benefits of electric cars.
Criticisms And Allegations Of Not Being Politically Correct
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Top Gear has been criticized for making some very not-politically correct statements. Gay groups, environmental groups, class warfare types, and other liberal hysterical types have complained bitterly about the show and comments made by the hosts. Others have been upset about statements made about foreign countries. Indeed, the Germans were upset when Clarkson described a car as being “typically German” because “it has a GPS that only points toward Poland and a fan belt that will last 1000 years.” Others were upset about the claim that “the communists were to making cars, what the Germans are to making love.”
They do make the occasional anti-American statement, so be aware of that. But these comments are usually limited to complaints about Americans being fat or the inability of American car companies to make good cars. The Vietnam episode had a couple of comments that were slightly uncomfortable, but were nothing compared to what has come out of the mouth of our own President. And I have yet to hear a political criticism of the USA, except when Clarkson told a visiting American, "welcome to the free world, I think you'll like it here" (though they do hilariously mock the State Department over a visa issue).
In any event, what people seem to miss in making these criticisms, is that everyone gets insulted: the French, the Italians, the Russians, the Americans. . . everyone, and especially their fellow British. None of it is done with animosity.
Conclusion
Top Gear is not what you think it would be from the title or the description of the show found in your tv guide. Give it a chance, you’ll like it. It can currently be seen on BBC America on Monday nights and Saturday afternoons. A new season begins on August 17th (8:00 pm EST).
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)