Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Diversity? wtf!

Until a few years ago diversity had a standard meaning and was then hijacked as the newspeak of the left to mean wherever you are you need to represent every single element of the society, and if not then make a law to bring them in from wherever you could. The only word which came to mind is why? Social engineering is only present in totalitarian societies. Slavery and actual discrimination is now banned as well, so the law protects everyone, and the rule of law means each applies to everyone equally.

Isn't that enough?

Apparently for the left, not at all. I won't even try and understand diversity from their side, as trying to view the world as a paranoiac, criminal or psychopath only tends to send you over that way and even if you can learn their strange ways doesn't mean you can do anything about it. Society should be organic and change naturally, and I see no merit or relevance in making sure your company represents society as a whole for the area, especially as that would also mean Indian shops and restaurants employing a representative number of black and white people as well as Asian. And housing and education and basically every aspect of society is meant to be diverse, so much so a spokesman for the left stated last year after a visit to Newcastle it was something like 'Aggressively White'. Excuse me, before the 60s every bloody place in Britain was 'Aggressively White', just as Peking (I prefer the names we can actually pronounce and spell so will continue to use them) is still 'Aggressively Chinese' and Lagos is 'Aggressively Black'. Of course, if you condemn a national area for actually having the dominant local race dominating it must apply universally.

To stray into their psychology just for a moment, all I can imagine is through the white man's guilt, these bedwetters feel so bad for the British Empire which was carried out two generations before most of them were born, they feel some deep-seated compulsion to make up for it (despite it civilising many savage societies who killed women and attacked innocent people in organised crime throughout their history, as well as India having probably the worst class system in world history) so do their best to destroy any success they see coming from what they see as an immoral gain at the expense of the coloured (I love using these words we'll soon be prosecuted for mentioning, but I do not mean 'black' but every other colour which is not white, so believe I am being totally accurate). Such motivations are entirely negative, so coming from a negative point of view, all following acts and results can only be negative. Base a theory on a false and destructive premise and you will create false and destructive policies. Force three different races to live and work together, and at best they'll avoid each other (my old college canteen had black and Asian tables as that was what they created themselves, and very few others would venture onto them) and at worst rip each other apart. When I was teaching it was a total mixture of races and religions, and the one thing guaranteed was they would take the mickey out of whichever races weren't there. And you tell a Chinese parent their daughter is going out with a black man, it's almost like lighting a firework.

So my entire point is diversity is a meaningless and irrelevant concept, the only guaranteed result is to destroy any society it is operated in. And in Britain much is now operated by law, and just below the law you try filling in a job application form and then having an interview in the public sector if you haven't learnt diversity policy inside out. You can be the best worker available and an absolute genius but if you can't answer their trick questions over what you should do if someone catches their turban in the lift or calls the office cat a Paki then the job you will not get. And if you refer to someone with cerebral palsy as a 'spastic' they'll stop you working for the state for the rest of your life, even if you're a doctor interviewing for a medical position, and quoting the textbooks (a spastic is a medical term however much the left have tried to wipe it from the dictionaries). It also assumes there is something extremely bad with a country which was originally white (they haven't applied it to any others, much to my own confusion, as if diversity is essential for US then it is essential for EVERYONE). This is dangerous, and only the other side of racial purity. Any ideological concept based purely on a political opinion and bearing no relation to reality is equally dangerous, and leads to the same totalitarian actions against the perceived enemy, followed by the vigilantism and divide and rule by getting neighbours to report others for crimes against diversity, just like reporting hidden Jews to the Nazis. There is absolutely no difference in reporting the Jews as reporting the employers who don't have anyone in a wheelchair, even if they are a professional football team.

As most people know, diversity is the second ugly sister of multiculturalism, the view all cultures are equal even if they maim and kill children and cover women in black sheets from head to toe. There is no right or wrong for the left, as long as it's another race or religion doing it. And no, they needn't be a minority as they will defend to the hilt whatever dire acts, normally considered serious crimes if carried out by the white natives, wherever they are carried out including their own original countries. That allows female genital mutilation, aborting girls and banning women from going to school as long as it's 'part of their culture', and they will fight for the death to allow polygamy and forced marriage when they live here as well. That is pretty well the essence of diversity, they want a thorough mixture of every possible element of the world right here and when completed presumably everywhere else. Returning to the mental motivations of these proponents, who currently appear to be the majority in Britain and only absent from a section of the Tory back benches and bishops, why anyone would genuinely want to debase a society once the greatest on the planet (in not just my opinion but millions of immigrants who stow away across many countries to get here every single day) which they also have to live in is a mystery to me, and attempting to understand it is not just impossible as it is not rational, but would send anyone that way as well, so don't even try it.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Discrimination, my arse

Listening to Woman's Hour on the BBC, I was amazed to hear the most educated women in the country whining and whinging on every single week about them not being able to succeed in every profession being discussed, exactly the same as when black people on the TV crime shows regularly say the police only stopped them (while speeding/no insurance/carrying drugs etc) 'because they're black'. Of course it only needed one instance of the weary policeman explaining he stopped the car at night and couldn't see who was driving it to prove nearly every single other example was equally bogus, and the secondary evidence being the huge majority of them were indeed guilty of offences.

Now we have laws against discrimination it's both very rare from the start, at least against women, and while police may enjoy nicking black men in the street for whatever reasons of their own, very few can or will be convicted as a consequence unless they have broken the law, which the figures show they frequently have, which I would suggest is the likeliest reason the police will stop them more than anyone else.

But these pathetic women, bearing in mind my mother qualified as Britain's youngest barrister in the 50s, and said her view of feminism was doing your best and getting on regardless, and continued to become a judge. One example may only be one, but it does set a precedent in an era where women earned less and landlords were allowed to select who they wanted by colour and race. Nowadays none of these things are allowed by law, although apparently many companies do pay women less but I would suggest this is between the staff, them and the unions to sort out assuming it actually is now illegal, and if not then work so it is if they are doing exactly the same work as men (unlike the tennis players who wanted the same prizes for three sets per round, bleeding cheek). But to hear these academics and professionals bleat on every week 'there aren't enough women in management/medicine/Nobel Prizes' or whatever the area that week is is sheer sour grapes. Of course I'm not saying there isn't any discrimination, but besides being illegal would account for so few either lack of women or black people having as many top jobs as white men as to be insignificant.

It is basically a sign of immaturity and a lack of worldliness which blames others for our lack of success in any way. It's no different really to a Jewish person like me claiming I didn't get a job because I was Jewish, even though I no longer have a Jewish name and even if they met me very few could even tell. But that hasn't stopped some Jewish people I know saying they were treated badly simply because they were Jewish although it was physically impossible to know. That adds an element of paranoia to the others, and between them cover virtually all accusations of bias, as if any woman goes to college and passes the exams they will become equal to everyone else with those exams, and only if they believe they will not will be at a disadvantage through their negative attitude, which then automatically puts them on the defensive, alienates people and then blames others for their lack of success.

Any self help manual will tell you the same things, do your best and the world will respond. And success does not discriminate, only your imagination is required to do that.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Black and white

Nothing to do with Paul McCartney and his piano, but the observation much of what I write is seen in terms of black and white rather than shades of grey. To me this is a left field accusation, as if I'm talking about what I know well enough to write about it, I either know it sufficiently or not, so shades of grey only conveys one thing, uncertainty or vagueness.

Now I read and hear these style of arguments in the written and spoken media every day, and to counter my position will use James Delingpole's 'Dogshit in yogurt' scenario. Rather than do your best to keep dogshit and yogurt separate, those using shades of grey will interminably (as there is and can never be a right answer when black and white have been removed) discuss how much dogshit should be in yogurt, with camps of 'as much as you like', 'as little as possible' etc, but the end result actually being identical, ie dogshit in your yogurt. Black.

So extend that to knowns and possibly knowns, what in the list is black and white or not?

Cancer
The Mafia
Britain being in the EU
Climate change/global warming
Taxing the rich more than others

etc etc.

I did not decide to specialise in any particular subject or area besides my actual job as a therapist, all other academic pursuits were imposed on me by the demand to pass a degree after three A levels. Between them all I learnt slightly more than most as I changed subjects for a year each time, thus including a year of A level science and degree level accounting on top of law and humanities.

The eventual outcome of 'individual pursuit', ie leaving college at 31 and finally being free to learn unrestricted by exam requirements, and the result was I learnt to decipher the difference (and level of) between shades of grey (uncertainty or personal opinion) and black and white (eg cancer is not a matter of degree, ie how much cancer do you want in your body?' is not a valid question.

This means I put every single item through the monochrome machine and it comes out the other end with a shade and reason for it. That was almost entirely through my legal training and years of application as a teacher, and will add here that in teaching you only use shades of grey to moderate students' essays, and not what you teach. 'It may be a good thing to punish thieves' was and never will be part of a legal lesson, although I do recall seeing a few in the media trying to argue it.

Examples are listed here, and each topic I can assign a number from 0-10 as to greys or black and white, based on the available evidence.

Wind turbines- Rating 10: My evidence is easily available, absolutely impossible to misread or measure badly, so given the opportunity and patience you can do a simple budgetary account of their output v input costs, and it is around break-even to negative, based on average wind speeds and durations and fixed and variable costs. The bottom line is they perform no function whatsoever. How can you have grey when they waste resources 100%?

Quantitative Easing: This has a few reasons, known by those who carry it out (governments) otherwise why would they do it? These are:

1) Keep interest rates low:

These (using basic accounting methods) benefit some people at the expense of others. Low interest rates guarantee twice as many individuals lose than gain, as the savings on mortgages are half the losses on savings. But the government and banks borrow at these levels so save money themselves.

2) Keep the currency low

I won't go into pages here, but devaluing your currency makes savings worth less than they were, and shifts cash into commodities, as they have innate value, like gold, food and oil.

This

3) Causes inflation: Governments know this, but don't mind as inflation reduces debt by a similar amount, the government are in debt, so it means the amount they owe is worth less than it was without adding a single thing to the GDP. That is fiddling with numbers, and in the real world referred to as 'False Accounting', and is illegal. It is also currency and market manipulation, which in the real world is referred to as 'Serious Fraud'.

Rating 9 (as some people do benefit).

EU membership:

There are solid knowns, as the profit and loss account (we lose, trust me), and then opinion pieces, such as 'Who do we want making our laws, our elected politicians or foreigners with no means of regulating through democracy?

Rating 8 (as some involves political choice, which can never be black or white).

Cancer I'll let you rate this one.

Mafia Membership- Rating 9 (as it benefits the small minority in the mafia at everyone else's expense)

Gay Marriage 0 on its existence, as how can anyone else have an opinion what other people do which only affects them, and marriage is only a cultural artifice with no physical basis in reality, but 9 as far as whether the word 'marriage' is used to nominate it, as marriage is a union between a man and a woman once you choose to accept it as part of your own culture.

I hope these give enough examples to demonstrate the Howard patent pending topic rating system. Therefore if a topic has a rating above 8 or so it becomes a 'known', and anyone then arguing as if it's a 3 or 4 can fuck off  be sure they haven't really thought it through or done their homework as the only ways you can treat a fact as an opinion is when you don't know enough to pass the exam.





Monday, February 11, 2013

Climate honesty

Quotes :

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, * I can speak quite frankly. The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
 “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
 
Thanks to Climate Change LIES for the information 

*This highlighted in red says more than any other phrase I have ever come across in my climate travels. Take that element away and they would all start speaking the truth as well (assuming it couldn't actually end them up in prison).

Thursday, February 07, 2013

How to rescue Britain

Our government want to raise all taxes by 3% to protect public services, guaranteeing a long term recession and making it impossible for the Tories to be re elected as they caused it. There are alternatives available (some already in use in many countries such as Iceland, Latvia and Estonia) but as they would cause loss to the bankers will not be implemented by any of the three parties in parliament who are all run by the same leaders (otherwise why would they all be in favour of the EU, quantitative easing and the Kyoto Protocol? A normal democracy is made up of parties who differ on major issues). So if our government was honest and independent even if they only added a few it would solve enough of our problems in time for the next election and get a Tory landslide (or any other party who implemented them, but we've currently got the coalition).

1) Allow interest rates to rise to the market level
2) Flat rate income tax around 20%- studies show well off return to the country, stop avoiding tax, and poor people far better off.
3) Renationalise public services. They are monopolies so by their nature outside capitalism.
4) Leave the EU and with it the Kyoto Agreement.
5) Stop quantitative easing and allow the market and currency to float naturally.
6) Ban bailing out of banks, change law to compensate savers and not bankers if they go bust.
7) Stop the use of savings for market making.
8 ) Bring back the gold standard or equivalent fixed currency standard.
9) Subsidise public transport fares, Britain has the highest fares in the world and prevents people commuting to jobs they could otherwise find.
10) Stop faffing around with nonsense like gay marriage and invading third world countries who will kill themselves and each other whatever we do, so why kill our own men there as well?
11) Close the door on immigration and make it exclusive rather than inclusive as it was before Tony Blair and is in virtually every other country in the world.

Jewish rap video (complete version)


Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Law v science- fight!


My parents and I are legally qualified, they are barristers while I dropped out after my degree to become a therapist. But the legal training forces you to justify every single point you make and prepare your entire evidence before you proceed.

All three of us independently saw straight through the entire fa├žade of global warming, simply because they put shaky material out before it is certain, and treat it as if it is a given. In law you'd either get disbarred if you did this at that level and frequency, or lose your clients a great deal of money and their freedom in some cases. Each new study or article talking about something 'possibly happening at an unspecified time or after our deaths' makes us cringe equally, while the greatest crime of all which science and scientific method warns against on day one (as it does in law and sociology, my minor subject) is extending from the particular to the general, induction.

Therefore finding a small glacier is melting or the Arctic ice is smaller this year than it was for 20 years is a piece of evidence. Over time (a scale far longer than politicians or the media, who these scientists are working for and feeding, are prepared to wait) you can put these items together until you reach a reasonable conclusion, one in criminal law (for mankind is on trial here) requiring a level of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt', and then can genuinely claim the world is dangerously warming. Till then we have theories, local and short term incidents, and computer models.

Now had the temperature already risen a dangerous amount and caused dangerous weather then of course we would be in trouble. Whether it was our fault would require a different study, directly eliminating every single driver of weather since day one before the 1970 cutoff point when CO2 reached levels high enough claimed to influence the temperature significantly (it still hasn't but don't worry about that) and if entirely dismissed the decadal oscillations and solar changes which have been almost the only drivers of climate in favour of added CO2 as well then the case has been won.

Look at that scenario and compare it with reality:

Temperature has been measured differently, and while the highest hockey stick by Michael Mann used by the UN to legislate shows a massive (OK, infinitesimal) rise of 0.7C in 150 years, while CO2 rose 50%, but others show a lower rise, and most but not all have been adjusted to rise (despite the urban heat island effect where most ground stations are raise the temperature by around the measured amount) and there is no exact consensus of the rise but only 0.7C as the possible maximum.

Studies combining solar activity (cosmic rays and sunspots) and the decadal oscillations caused by the earth's wobble track the temperature line very closely, while the 45' rise of CO2 is fairly linear. This is solid evidence, in the present and clearly measurable in comparison with sampled and averaged world temperatures, post-processed to fill the gaps and altered to within an inch of its life.

It is absolutely clear that if presented genuinely, the 'reasonable man' (the legal test) would not see any solid case for warming, let alone the secondary charge of being 'man made'. The scientists are not paid by results but by quantity produced, if they don't publish a certain amount they don't get paid and may lose their jobs. So produce they do, and let the rest of us deal with what junk or otherwise they do produce. Before global warming and science had not been political since the claim the earth was the centre of the universe the majority of science was decent and useful, with a small rump of the sort of junk studies the papers love and publish people who name their dogs certain things are more likely to be struck by lightning than those who go to Majorca on holiday, but they were the edge of decency and quite separate from curing diseases and making cars go further on a tank of fuel.

But global warming turned the neutral man, that is one neither particularly bad nor good, into a monster. The leaders, who realised the potential and created studies guaranteeing their field would be provided with cash for decades, were the ones who were probably bad to start with, while the majority as always were the colluders who simply rode the wave of dubious science to keep their own jobs and positions. But every single one has at least one degree, usually two or three. They were taught science (not law), and scientific (but not legal) method, and ought to be fully equipped to separate wheat from chaff. But clearly not. When the cards are laid out, lawyers in general can easily see the dog's breakfast of utter nonsense, contradictory claims, alterations, non-sequiturs, incomplete experiments etc, everything which would get a student sent down but once qualified can't lose their degrees so have no reason to hold to such standards if being paid to put them aside.

A lawyer (including an academic one, as we all have to process the same material as students as practitioners) can assess a good and a poor case almost immediately, just as a detective can. It is mainly through training and being exposed to a series of statements from witnesses and defendants, especially in a jury trial where both sides are so convincing if you listen to one you'll usually accept them as correct, until you hear the other and put them together. Global warming has two sides, I have just presented them, and to me the case for the defence is so strong the judge wouldn't even allow it to come to trial but dismiss the case and jury. Now we are well over 20 years down the road of predictions made originally in the 80s and 90s and can see the rise in temperature is nowhere near even the lowest of the predictions, it means the sensitivity to added CO2 in the form of positive feedback from increased humidity cannot exist. If it had we'd have evaporated enough water from the oceans to cause a rise beyond the bare amount for added CO2 with none at all. The one thing which has risen is CO2 (despite phenomenal taxes to attempt to slow it down) and the temperature per year stubbornly ignores all attempts to derail it from its 30 year positive/negative cycle.

On a personal note I hope one by one new people will notice the current state of climate data and gradually realise you can't have global warming without the warming element, something the politicians have as yet failed to grasp, mainly as besides the cashflow element which drives it above and beyond the others, they are still talking way ahead in the future and dismissing the present as if the future is all that will count. Give that to a judge, a jury or a teacher and the result will be the same, a big fat FAIL.

Jewish rap


David Howard's Jewish Rappaport

 

Come on everybody, come on everybody, come on everybody and do the shpritz!

 

I'm a good frum boy, I'm a haimisher Yid

I'm here to tell you I'm the kosher kid.

I may be white and I may be a Jew,

but I can rap and I'm here to show you.

 

Let's rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen beat, oy vay!

 

Don't look at me like I'm a shmo

I'm the man as you'll soon know

I'm not that rough and I'm not that shabby

and if you diss me I'll tell my rabbi.

 

I'm a shloch oy vay, I'm a shloch oy vay, baruch baruch atah adonai.

 

I served my time learning rap from the rov

I passed my test and they said 'mazel tov!'

I told my booba and I told my ma,

they said 'go David, you will be a star!

 

hava hava hava nagila, hava hava hava nagila!

 

So I hit the streets and I crashed the scene

I covered every yard of Golders Green

I rapped in Hendon and I rapped in Mill Hill

I haven't rapped in Kenton but I certainly will.

 

Yossi, Yossi, Yossi, hey! All the people shout 'oy vay!'

 

I'd like a job where I can stay

with a lively crowd to make my day.

I haven't made a profit but I haven't made a loss.

The only job I got was a gig at Brent Cross.

 

Make me an offer, make me an offer, make me an offer I can't understand.

 

I'm Morris Portnoy the kosher kid

some people still call me a Yid,

I don't care 'cos it is true

There's nothing wrong with being a Jew

I like to get my food from Blooms

chandeliers adorn my rooms

I fly to Tel Aviv and Spain

and watch the Spurs at White Hart Lane

 

My wife gets borscht and beets at Yarden's

We go to shul at Kinloss Gardens

I've got a tub and I've got a sauna

I left my heart at Henly's Corner

I thumb my nose at yellow lines

traffic lights and warning signs

Let the goyim use the code

there's ain't no rules on Finchley Road.

 

We like to hang out at the gym

Our kids all go to Habonim

They go to camp and they go to cheder

and ask four questions at the seder.

 

Golders Green and Hendon Central

Taking pills 'cos they say we're mental

Onyx taps with golden fixtures

Going out and dating shiksas

 

Osem Goshen lockshen mayim

The Land of Canaan and the melech Mitzrayim

Esther Moishe Ruben, Dov,

you finish your barmitzvah and they shout 'mazel tov!'

 

Don't be afraid your identity is showing

be proud to be a Levy or a Cohen

Even though they think we're British

we speak in English but we think in Yiddish

 

We like to relax, we're always chillin'

we say our prayers when we lay our tefillin

the bible says we are the chosen

our greatest poet's Michael Rosen.