Some sense from Down Under

February 19, 2007

Hi Brit,

It appears that the good folks in Australia haven’t fallen as hard for the Global Warming hoax as we have up here, Scaremongers.  While the whole article by Cardinal Pell is worth reading, and it’s not very long 😉 there are a couple of quotes that are really good.  He starts with, “Global warming doomsdayers.”  I like that turn of phrase.  Besides, who should know more about doomsdayers than the Catholic Church?  The ending is great, “The science is more complicated than the propaganda!”  Which hits right to the heart of the problem with understanding Global Warming, and why it’s such a good scheme.  One would think that a list of temperature readings would be simple to understand, and, if we could see the raw data, it probably would be.  That, however, is keep carefully hidden in a web of statistics, corrected data, computer models, ice core samples, and graphs that have been “smoothed.”  When one gets right down to it, the Global Warming Alarmists sound more like lawyers than scientists.

the Grit

Advertisements

Conspiracy

February 19, 2007

Hi Grit

Sometimes I have this theory that the whole world is built on conspiracy because it seems that throughout the ages almost any major event, particularly a disaster or catastrophe, generates a plethora of conspiracy theories aimed at questioning the official versions of events.

Last night (18th February), I watched a programme on the BBC, which was about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11. Whilst there might appear to be justification for some of the theories outlined, others to me were so bizarre as to be incomprehensible. To suggest that the twin towers fell as a result of demolition when there is clear visual evidence of planes flying into them, is sheer idiocy. Then, they add to this the (so-called) fact that the government destroyed a nearby building because it contained a CIA office which held evidence of this tragedy being a US government plot. Others were theorising that the passengers of flight 93 were abducted by government agents and that the plane did not crash. Yet more tried to suggest that the plot was known six months earlier, because a film was produced which had a similar story-line, only as is the case with films, that had a happier ending. I am actually surprised that no-one bought Tom Clancy into one of these mad theories, because in one of his books a passenger plane is flown into the White House, killing the President.

Of course, the US is not alone in this pursuit of conspiracy theories. Here in the UK, despite it being ten years ago, the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the late Princess Diana still continue to flourish. These range from those who suggest that it was a government backed plot to kill the princess in order to avoid her marriage to a Middle-East family, which they felt might tarnish the Royal lineage, to those who believe that the Royal Family themselves were behind the accident.

Of course, conspiracies are not solely restricted to tragedies. One only has to look at the pro-global warming proponents conspiracy theories about denialists, or the “alien” theories surrounding crop circles, to see that whenever there is a major phenomena, the word “conspiracy” is one of the first to follow official explanations.

One has to wonder about the reasons and conditions that lead peoples minds to turn so readily towards conspiracy as an explanation. Whilst it is true that, particularly in politics on both sides of the Atlantic, there have been many political cover-ups and total lies, which make believing anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth difficult to believe, the vast majority of these are proven to be lies within months, if not sooner.

Perhaps it is the enormity and shock of these events that lead people to automatically question their occurance. In the two cases mentioned above, the events themselves were beyond the perception and belief of the ordinary member of the public. Such is the depth of the disbelief that it defies all reason and logic. Similarly, there is a lack of belief in a system or society structure that allows such events to occur and it affects the trust we have in that society. Thus, in order to fill the void of understanding and comprehension, perhaps we all look to ourselves to provide an explanation that is equally enormous and outrageous in its foundation.

Personally, I have my own conspiracy theory. I believe that there is a conspiracy between the conspiracy theorists to stop both lies and truth being believed.

the Brit

Lower taxes, higher revenue.

February 18, 2007

Hi Brit,

Considering the tax rates y’all have, you should send a copy of, Sharp fall in US budget deficit, to Blair.  It seems that, even though our Government has lowered taxes over the past several years, revenue flowing into the Federal coffers is at all time highs, $834 billion in the last quarter.  Of course, our politicians are still managing to increase spending fast enough to fritter away the gains, but that’s nothing new.

the Grit

Sex five miles high

February 18, 2007

Hey Grit

Have you read the article about the air stewardess who was sacked for having sex in the toilet of the aircraft whilst it was in flight. What makes this incidence more newsworthy is that the male participant was Ralph Fiennes the actor. The stewardess in question, Liza Robertson, at first denied the allegation, but in a story released in the Daily Mail today, has conceded that it did happen and that she was a willing particpant. In addition, the lady further reveals that the fling continued in the stars hotel room that night, but ended after that one night.

What I find amazing about the report itself is that the reporter suggests that the stewardess should be seen as a victim because she lost her job as a result of the incident. It also suggests that the actor has “dumped” her and took advantage of a “vulnerable” young woman. There are several issues here. The stewardess knew full well that she was breaking her employment terms and therefore could have expected nothing less than the sack. Ms Robertson would also have been aware that an incident that started in this manner could hardly be viewed as the basis of meaningful and long-term relationship.

Raking up Ms Robertson’s past life in support of this image is hardly sound journalism, nor can it be used an excuse for the lady’s behaviour. Add to this the fact that the stewardess has been involved with a similar weekend fling with a passenger on a previous flight with Quantas, and the fact that no doubt the paper has paid her handsomely for her story, and I fail to see how the reporter can conceivably promote the notion that Ms Robertson is a “victim.” 

Similarly, the comment that somehow Ralph Fiennes has not helped and is somehow a villan of the piece is absurb. He did not force her to act in this manner, neither did he force her to spend the night with him at the hotel. If anything, the lady herself is the one doing the using. She has blatantly used the celebrity status of Fiennes to make financial gain out of the incident.

Ms Robertson has no-one to blame for the result of this incident but herself. Her actions have proven that she did not respect her position nor the fact that they were both consenting adults and that she willingly entered into this incident.

the Brit 

UK Human rights and Freedom extinguished

February 18, 2007

Hi Grit

The government in the UK, if re-elected at the next election, will be taking the final steps to abolish human rights, freedom and privacy for the individual UK citizen, all in the name of protecting us against terrorism.

If the labour government have their way, all adults over the age of 16 will, by 2009, be required to place their fingerprints on a central computer. The suggested law may even extend to “iris” prints. These moves are in addition to the requirement to provide photographs for driving licences; requirement to provide details for the census and annual local government property occupancy register (for council tax purposes); and the multitude of close-circuit television cameras that adorn our towns, streets, villages and roads. An extra measure of identity that is also being considered is to place our medical records in the same “identikit” of us.

Not satisfied with us already being the most watched nation in the EU, these latest moves will actually increase the gap between us and other countries, turning us into one of the most monitored nations in the world. Some may argue that these moves are positive, but are they? Let us consider the evidence.

1) COST:

Naturally, there is the cost of the citizen ID rules. The government suggest that this will amount to just over £5.4 billion ($10.8 billion). However, independent sources put the figure at £19.3 billion ($38.6 billion). This represents over £300 ($600) per annum, per citizen. In addition to this, it is compulsory for people to give this information at one of 69 centres through the UK, at their own cost. In some cases this means travelling up to 100 miles, irrespective of age, financial situation or infirmity. A round trip of this nature, taken in work time will cost the worst affected another £100 at least. Of course, this does not take into account the annual running costs of the scheme.

2) PRIVACY

A basic human right is that of privacy. The ability to live our lives without fear or favour, and to keep parts of our lives free from the prying eyes of others. From 2009, if these plans go ahead, this will no longer be possible. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but that is not the point. Do I really want my health, age, medical condition, financial status and life history potentially exposed to every form of media and individual nationally and internationally? Our data protection act suggests that such information should be secure but, in view of the fact that the government has incorporated rules to allow certain organisations, commercial as well as government and non-government organisations to access the data, this guarantee no longer holds true.

3) DISCRIMINATION

Such a system will also lead to discrimination, both intentional and by devious means. Employers will be tempted to access medical and financial information about potential employees, therefore leading to unfair bias against certain applicants. This is particularly the case in medical issues. For example, take the case of a person who may in the past have had cancer. Although possibly totally cured, when such a person is set against an applicant who has not past health problems, which is the less than totally honest employer going to chose?

Medical, legal and financial practitioners will be able to access medical records, providing a situation where they can discriminate against those they do not want to assist.   

4) MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE:

No computer or other registration system is infalible and the identity system will be no exception. With personal and biometric information on around fifty million people on file, the incidences of misinterpretation, incorrect identification and transpostion of information will rise. As a result this is bound to lead to an increase in the incidence of miscarriages of Justice. Add to this the fact that none of the biometric identity measures are 100% accurate and it can be seen that this will compound the issue. A small example of this might occur with twins for example. Especially in cases of identical twins wrong identification is even more likely.

5) THE CONCEPT OF INNOCENCE

The United Kingdom laws have always been founded upon the rule of “innocent until proven guilty.” It is bad enough that in recent decades tax and other laws have led to a reverse of this process in such areas. Now, with the introduction of of these measures, such a foundation has been totally eroded. The onus on the citizen will now be to prove their innocence in all cases.

Does this mean that in future one has to keep a daily diary of life events to ensure that one cannot get into a situation where lack of evidence to suggest otherwise leads to automatic guilt? I work from home and, during the day, this means that there is no-one to provide an alibi for my whereabouts, especially if I am not on the computer. If I take two hours off for a bath and rest, will I in future have to log this and provide photographic evidence? 

6) IDENTITY THEFT

Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of the past decade. It is also one of the least obvious to the victim, unless it has been committed for financial purposes. How can we be sure that our identity will not be stolen or duplicated for other criminal purposes? What is more important is, if such an event does occur, how will we know until a crime, using our identity has been committed?

7) PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME AND TERRORISM

The assumption that identity laws will offer protection against crime and terrorism is flawed in so many ways as to make it laughable. It only works if one starts from the premise that every hardened criminal and committed terrorist is going to abide by these laws. Naturally, Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, and underworld criminals are going to assist the law by coming forward voluntarily to offer their biometric identity to the authorities. I think not! Such an assumption is, at best, insane.

There are those who argue that it is easier to catch someone who does not possess an identity card. How does that work? There are 60 million people in the UK and it is certain that there are not enough law enforcement agencies or officers to check each indicvidual. Add to this the fact that there is unencumbered travel in the EU through 25 countries and a determined criminal or terrorist has more than adequate escape routes. These are in addition to the many illegal ways of escaping from the country. Furthermore, why should such persons worry about being apprehended when there is always the route of identity theft to cover their tracks?

Although there may be rules and laws in place to address breaches of the protections in place, these are an “after the event” remedy, by which time the damage is done. Once the security of information has been broken, one cannot recapture the privacy, irrespective of how much money has been recovered in damages.

The hypothesis that these measures are a protection against crime and terrorism, as has been clearly demonstrated, is totally wrong. They will have little to no effect in these areas. 

In conclusion therefore, one has to observe that these new laws will have limited impact upon detering any major crime and terrorism attempts. What they will do is to damage the human rights of the innocent citizen.

the Brit

Yet another poke in the eye of Global Warming!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again I have the pleasure of poking the myth of Global Warming in the eye with a literary pointy stick.  According to the “science” behind the theory, the more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature should climb.  Fair enough.  However, according to this, 2006 was Earth’s 5th warmest year, it would appear that CO2 levels have dropped, else, 2006 would have been the warmest year.  Other than making the obvious case that Global Warming rests on shaky foundations, the story is short enough to include completely, and make detailed commentary on.  My comments will start with ***

======================================== 

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century.

Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change.

*** What?  Temperature is temperature.  If you don’t have adequate measurements, concentrate on getting them, not “alternative methods!”  How many BILLIONS of dollars do you “scientists” need to scatter some thermometers around?  Of course, until you do, all the jabber about Global Warming has to be considered a total lie.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

*** Which is like mixing apples and oranges?  If the satellite measurements are reliable, why bother with other means?  Could it be that the satellites don’t confirm your predictions?

“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”

 *** Which is like, hedging one’s bet?  If El Nino is responsible, why, if not for propaganda purposes, blame greenhouse gases?  Can you prove that guess?  Obviously not, else you would.  Does your research grant depend on connecting Global Warming to human activity, obviously it does.

Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities.

*** Except earlier in the article it was pointed out that adequate data is not available for remote regions.  So, this bit is obviously a lie.

In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century.

*** Which leaves us with the obvious, and unanswered, question, why wasn’t 2006 even warmer?  I don’t recall seeing any reports that CO2 levels were declining, or levels for any other greenhouse gas going down for that matter.  This tends to indicate that the “climate scientists” may not know as much as they claim they do.

===========================================

Heck people, if this doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you are being played, I don’t know what will.  Make sure you click over to the original article; they deserve the traffic.

Oh, it occurred to me that even if I quit driving a vehicle powered by internal combustion and went back to a horse and buggy, these same twits would be bitching that my equines were causing Global Warming because of their flatulence. 

the Grit

Pelosi smiles while Democrats spit on our troops!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

In a replay of the last war the Democrats lost for us, Nanny Pelosi has engineered a spineless vote in Congress to pass a “non-binding” resolution against President Bush’s running of the war in Iraq.  While this vile spit-in-the-face attempt to spit in the face of our troops, who, while risking their lives in service to their country, are totally committed to the war, failed to make it through the Senate, it still serves to prove how cowardly and anti-American the liberals are.  Just take a glance at this, Pelosi smiles at Bush, and know that she is really smiling at a partial political victory at the expense of the men and women who defend our country.  Of course, if Pelosi and her liberal gang had any stones, and I’m surprised that Nanny P. doesn’t, they would have put their cards on the table and tried to actually cut funding for the war.  However, as usual, symbolism is just as good to liberals as substance, and they are just beside themselves at this at this partially successful mocking of everything America used to hold dear. 

the Grit

Bionics, catching up to the dream!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

Considering my age and dangerous profession, that being farmer, there is great news.  The vision of the “bionic man” is starting to come true, Trials for ‘bionic’ eye implants.  I know that Rush Limbaugh got a “bionic” hearing connection, which is cool, but this is an order of magnitude higher technology, and is cool enough to put the chill on Global Warming.  Speaking of which, this sort of thing is where the research money should be going.

the Grit

Britney even balder!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

What a thing to wake up to, Britney, in the few hours that I don’t have the news on, has rehabbed and shaved her head.  So much for needing that second cup of coffee.  Assuming that her naughty bits are still hairless, this leaves her with only eyebrows to prove she is a mammal.  Unless those are painted on, in which case, I refer you to my post speculating on her being a space alien.

the Grit

Global warming and the Sun

February 17, 2007

Hey Grit

I have been told in the past that I should change the UK newspaper that I use to do research on the Global Warming issue, so this week I did just that, moving up to the highly respected UK Sunday Times, a broadsheet paper that prides itself on the educational, intellectual and scientific approach to most issues, and what did I find? Nothing less than another article dealing with a cautionary message to those in the IPCC who remain dogmatic regarding their findings.

I have to say from the outset that the author of the article, Nigil Calder, is also the co-author of the book that illustrates the cosmic ray effect on Global Warming, that I mentioned in an earlier post. However, he is also a former editor of the very prestigious publication “New Scientist.” Therefore, one has to take notice of his views. There are a number of aspects of the article that deserve attention.

Mr Calder mentions the potential error of taking a “90% certainty” as a basis for accurate action, drawing an analogy with the scientifice comment made in 1958 when it was said to be 90% certain that we could control nuclear fusion, a comment that has subsequently proven to be totally wrong. However, as we know, having start on the route of developing nuclear power no-one knows how to stop the effects of it. A similar situation could develop with controlling global warming. If we do not understand fully the implications of the problem, how the heck can we be sure that remedial actions are controlable? 

Mr Calder also confirms that the IPCC are paying too little regard to the sun as a contributory cause of Global Warming and that, if this is not taken into account, the planned man-made adjustments may be too much, causing the reverse of the result sought, in other words, too much cooling. There is a level of CO2 that is necessary to maintain the equilibruium of the planet. If we reduce our emissions by too great a level and then find that cosmic activity does have a significant impact, we may find ourselves sometime in the future yelling “light the fires again!”

What does seem strange to me is, that whilst many are just dismissing this as just a “denialist” view, it is being treated seriously enough in scientific circles for a major research study to be undertaken. Does this not suggest that it is something that those intent on proving man-made global warming have failed to take into account sufficiently in their own researches? It is this lop-sided and unbalanced approach to scientific research that always bothers me.

Unlike the politicians on Global Warming, Mr Calder does not claim to have all the answers, but he reasonably suggests that the issues should be approached with caution. I repeat my previous comment that the problem with mainstream research is the direction given within the original hypothesis. If you say to someone “I want to find out how much global warming is due to man” the sub-conscious inclination is to prove that fact and, to some degree, this tends to blind them to the opposite viewpoint. To get an accurate and balanced view one needs to research the positive and negative at the same time, then compare the findings.

The have been too many instances in past research where findings have been stated as being absolute facts and solutions, only to find later that either they were not, or the remedy produced was more harmful than the original problem. I fear that we are in danger of taking this same route with global warming unless we proceed with care.

the Brit

Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

What?

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, U.S., developing nations accept Iran aid cut plan, where we learn that, “Western and developing nations broadly accept a U.N. nuclear agency plan to cut almost half its aid projects in Iran.”  OK, I, and all rational people, know that the UN sucks and is run by corrupt twits that should not be trusted to run the local dog pound, but this is beyond belief!  Why in the hell has anyone ever given nuclear aid to Iran, ever!  Now that this insane policy has come to light, why are we not cutting every tiny shred of aid, any kind of aid, every kind of aid to this rabid, Jew hating, terrorist sponsoring state!  For that matter, why does the UN have a nuclear aid agency in the first place?  Excuse me while I take some more pills and pour myself a strong drink.

the Grit

Polish invasion of England complete

February 16, 2007

Help, I need an exit boat! You will recall from past posts Grit that England is experiencing high levels of immigration, particularly from the former eastern European states. It appears from an article in one of today’s newspapers, that it has now become a total takeover. A local council in the Midlands has been surrendered to the Polish people and no doubt other areas of the country will quickly follow.

You may wonder what is causing me such concern. The answer can be found here. The council in question has put up local diversion signs – in Polish. Despite the fact that it is rumoured that the local Polish population is only 6%, there is obviously something the council officers know that we don’t. Similarly, although officers at central government state the signs are illegal, is this just a ploy to lull us into a false sense of security?

I will be watching developments.

the Brit

PS: Jeśli otóż Polski słowa ukazywać się w mój poczty, you will know that I have have been captured.

Danielle Lloyd gets her teddy back

February 16, 2007

Hi Grit

I noticed today that one of the alleged “bullies and racists” from the big brother house seems to be getting her life back together. Danielle Lloyd, the 23 year old model, got a surprise Valentine’s gift with the return of her Teddy (the footballer that is). She was seen out in the back seats of a movie with him on valentine night, indulging in what all young love couples do in such a location, which is not watching the film!

Knowing how partial young women are to having an old teddy to cuddle in bed, I bet this has made Danielle’s nights far more comfortable and cuddly.

the Brit

Global Warming, following the money trail

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve said before that the case for “Global Warming, end of the world so we must act NOW” is motived more by money and politics than science.  It seems that I am not alone in this belief, On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!  However, even though the lie of Global Warming is now so entrenched in the public mind that there is no stopping these fear mongers from winning, we can still learn some lessons from this gigantic and corrupt conspiracy.

1.  Always follow the money before trusting anyone’s motives.

2.  Never, under any circumstances, ever, trust anyone either employed by, or connected to, the United Nations.

3.  It’s past time to question why scientific research needs to be funded by the Government.

4.  It’s way past time to question our continued funding of the UN.

5.  Most politicians get their jobs by being good liars.  Why do we expect them to change their ways once they get in office?

6.  We, as a country, have few friends outside our boarders.  We should start acting like it.

7.  Almost all fanatics, be they religious, political, or environmentalists, are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

the Grit

At least she was wearing knickers…

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

Following up on, what would appear to be, our favorite subject, there is another tart to add to the exposed in public list.  This time it, Ashley Olsen shows off her underwear.  While she wasn’t actually flashing her naughty bits, it’s pretty close.  My theory is that she is going to open her own brand of lewd dance exercise studio, complete, of course, with exercise videos and a new wardrobe line.

the Grit

We don’t have smoking police, yet…

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

While we don’t yet have special police to fetter out evil smokers, at times the regular police are pressed into service.  Ellison Sends ‘Sorry’ Note to Tancredo For To-Do Over Cigar Complaint.  This is the face saving attempt by newly elected Representative Ellison (D-Min) who sicked the Capital Police on Representative Tancredo (R-Col) for smoking a cigar in his office, which happens to share a wall with the Freshman Congressman.  As it turns out, there is no law or rule preventing smoking in the private offices of Representatives, but the police did drop by to mention the report to Tancredo and share a laugh, if not a stogy.  Of course, if the liberals get their way, the officer would simply have shot the evil smoker, sprayed his corpse with a fire extinguisher, and been done with the matter.

the Grit

Anti-smoking police – £29.5 million

February 15, 2007

The UK government are at it again. Just when one thinks that they cannot waste any more money, the powers that be come up with yet another crazy scheme to waste our money. Not satisfied with all the cameras that are spread around the country, nor with the increasing powers that are given to police and local authorities, they have decided that we still cannot be trusted on our own.

This time it is all to do with the impending “smoking ban” which comes into force later this year. Under the new laws we will be banned from smoking in all public places. That includes bars, shops and resturants. The owners of such establishments will also be liable to fines if they allow people to breach the ban in their premises. However, as is this is not enough incentive to uphold this law, the government have decided to spend nearly £30 million ($60 million) of our money to train what they call “smoking” police. 

The task of these officers (undercover of course) will be to wander around all of the establishments trying to spot the illegal smoker in the act. What has to be borne in mind here, is what happens if a smoker is standing outside of a shop and the smoke from his/her cigarettes drifts into the shop? No doubt they will be fined for a “passive” smoke offence.

With this, and the recent case of smoke penetrating the wall into a neighbours house, it is not hard to imagine waking up one day to find one of these new “fag” detectors encamped in the cupboard under the stairs.

the Brit 

Now this is my kind of research!

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

This is why the United States has the best economy in the world, innovative technology applied to practical purposes.  Not being satisfied with just making my favorite beer, and quite likely the best beer in the world, Samuel Adams has taken the next logical step and has created the best beer glass in the world, Does a Better Glass Make For a Tastier Beer? One Brewer Seems to Think So.  This is the sort of thing all that money being wasted on Global Warming should be going to.  Down with Climate Science, up with Beer Science!  And just think, this astounding feat was done without a dime of Government money or a 5 year politically manipulated research project by the United Nations.  Maybe the people who really believe in global warming should consult Budweiser about solving the problem.

the Grit

Democrats move toward socialized health care!

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I hope the American people are happy, because putting Democrats in charge of Congress is already starting to pay unexpected dividends.  While the subject of socialized medicine was carefully avoided during the recent campaigns, here it comes: Mental health bill moves forward in Congress.  Of course, this sounds innocent enough, just another attempt to force Big Business to be fair to the little guy, in this case forcing health insurance providers to cover mental health treatments.  However, underneath the feel good surface lurks a sneaky plan to drive health care costs high enough that the average person can’t afford it, forcing the kind and good hearted Government to take over and protect the innocent, but not too bright, general public.  Placing Big Brother firmly in charge of another 15% of the US economy, is just a bonus.  What’s that old saying, “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it?”  So get that elective surgery now, because, after Big Government takes the reigns, the wait time for that nip and tuck or those fake boobs is going to be measured in years.  Oh, and pick up a good thick book, because the wait time at your doctor’s office is going to make a trip to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) seem like the service at McDonald’s.

the Grit