Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun Pt. II

RL mourns the passing of 'Great' Britain - when a man could
be homophobic and racist and be celebrated for it...

I was glancing through my old posts when I saw my old post on Richard Littlejohn's fine book House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness and noticed that I'd left the door open for a sequel. Well here is that said sequel! Obviously it'll be worse than the original (unless it's a Godfather Part II, or Toy Story 2, but I don't hold out much hope) but I'm lazy, so I'm going for the usual easy target. Anyhoo, here's a couple of 5-star review from amazon:

I have to say that this is a genuine five star review. You'll notice there are many but some are oh-so cleverly masking negative reviews that are not only cringeworthy and unoriginal but patronising (Some of them are pretty funny though... And the people who do that are at least people with views that aren't horrible...). These people should do stand up. (The 'do' isn't needed in that sentence.)

As A. Birchall said, "there's clearly a campaign to slate this book. No doubt by Labour loyalists or Con-Dem haters" (Sensible people who are left-wing then...) Another said "my friends got brain damage so he loved it!". Which says alot (That should be two separate words. And yeah, because RL has never mocked disabled people...). If you hate the Mail and RJ (RJ? His name isn't Richard John. His fans are so thick they even don't know the rat-bag's name...) fair enough, say it. Even if you haven't read the book - which some admit to. You're opinion of him can still help someone to dicide to purchase or not (That is true, except I would say almost everyone who buys this book has also read his columns, so it really doesn't matter). But it's a different realm altogether when a number of people are scrambling for the 'no' button after every positive review (Perhaps that is a little far). Some positive reviews are very descriptive, intriguing and to the point and make me want to know more, yet for example only "0 out of 10 people find this review helpful" ...why? (Maybe other people felt differently?) Who can these people be I wonder? (You have no possible way of knowing, but I suspect that won't stop you jumping to conclusions) Sometimes a negative review is placed and followed by positive one, these are then mysteriously blanked out through the mass of people who "don't think this adds to the discussion" - when it clearly does - in a poor attempt to hide what's great about this book (That's not how Amazon reviews work. I think you mean Amazon comments. And maybe, just maybe, the comment was insulting or otherwise wasn't adding constructively to the discussion). These actions, frankly speak volumes and indicates that his work clearly hits a nerve somewhere (Yes it does. Because his views are offensive and hateful.). 
Both the positive AND negative reviews made me want to buy the book because of how much he clearly annoys the followers of the self-serving crooks who were massively part of the mess this country is in (or all because they simply don't like a certain newspaper) (That's a bit petty isn't it? And the mess the country is in is a result of a global economic crash. Not the Labour government. Indeed, Gordon Brown is considered one of the favourites for the vacant position as head of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], except Mr. Cameron has said he won't support him. He is also currently an advisor for the World Economic Forum. He didn't do this by being incompetent. He got it by being so highly respected by the economic community as a result of his safe leadership and economic recovery packages that were copied by most of the rest of the world. Unlike Mr. Osborne, who isn't highly regarded by anyone.)

As a hard-working Brit taxpayer who's never relied on benefits (People who rely on benefits can still be hard working you know. They may have been laid-off and can't find a job as a result of the swingeing cuts made by the current government. Not everyone on benefit is a work-dodger. Though you and RL will probably never accept that...), who's fathers' pension was stolen (I don't think Gordon Brown nicked your dad's pension somehow...), who was fined for using fog lights in dense fog (That would have been the police, moron. As much as Brown doesn't steal pensions, he also doesn't go around fining people for using fog lights either...), I could go on. Reading it was so enjoyable to the point it reminded me there was someone with a voice on my side, someone who, ok, knows he can't make a difference but can simply, like me, sigh, roll my eyes and chuckle at the madness we've witnessed from a government of a once great country. (Out of these many lines, only four of them are an actual review. And a really shit review at that. It's entirely subjective and about as in-depth as a character from a Dan Brown novel...)

Thoroughly recommend it! (And yet you never say why I should buy it...)

And here's another one, somewhat shorter than the last:

Judging by the number of faux reviews from guardian munching (I don't know about the Daily Mail, but people usually read the Guardian rather than eat it...) leaders of the proletariat (How dare people be middle-class, but champion the cause of those less well-off and influential than themselves?) who are obviously uspet enough by LittleJohns (He doesn't have a capital J. It's not like McRae or anything...) musings to take precious time out of their busy schedules to mock him (Actually it's just really, really fun. It's certainly worth taking time out of my empty schedule to do.), this is a read I will thoroughly enjoy (So you have not only not read it, but not even purchased? I really don't think you should be 'reviewing' anything. Really this is as much a 'faux review' as anything by any 'guardian munching leaders of the proletariat'.). Thanks again to the above mentioned persons, what would I do without you. (nb - thats not a question) (And what would this website do without Littlejohn and his followers? Pick on other people obviously, but there would be no go-to idiot for when I'm feeling particularly lazy...)

That's really it for good reviews that aren't fake or two lines long, so we shall have to end it there. But there are other Littlejohn books to mock!

The Christian Party

Now, I have no idea how I managed to get onto the Christian Party website, but this is where I found myself this very morning. Here is a rundown of some of their stupider policies. I apologise for the staggering length, but I tried to avoid leaving anything horrible out...:

Taxation
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Introduce a single rate Income Tax of 20 per cent for earnings in excess of £12,000 per annum. (It's nice to see you would protect the most vulnerable in our society. So the poor get to pay the same as before, but the rich? They get to pay far, far less. Wahey!)
• Introduce a single rate Corporation Tax of 20 per cent based on revenue minus the purchases of raw materials and inputs from other firms, wages, pension payments to workers and the purchase of plant and equipment.  All other corporate tax relief will be scrapped. (So, you want to cut them back further? Is 24% just too damn high? I suppose you're right, why the hell should we take billions of pounds from businesses that screw us over? Why should they be punished for the economic meltdown that they caused by being greedy and stupid? It's far better that ordinary people should be punished...                                                                              
• Abolish Inheritance Tax. (Ah. Inheritance tax is good. It prevents the rich from propagating the class system by leaving all of their stuff to their children who have done nothing to deserve it. Far better that the government can spend some of the money on schools and hospitals than some little brat can buy an extra yacht, surely?)
• Increase VAT to 20 per cent whilst maintaining the current exemptions. (Sadly, the ConDem government has done just that. Doesn't make it any less regressive or unfair on the poor mind you.)
• Reduce the size of the Inland Revenue Service. (Pah! Who needs taxes eh? Oh, hang on...)

Law & Order
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Stamp out the sex slave trade.  Bring heavy penalties to bear on sex slave-traders and slave-drivers. (I'm pretty sure that the sex slave trade is more than just frowned upon as it is. The police do what they can, but it's not exactly easy.)
• Raise the motorway speed limit to 90mph. (Now I'm all for raising the speed limits, after all they haven't been changed since they were implemented in 1965. But isn't 80 a better figure? There are quite a few cars on the road that can't do 90 for a start. And 90 is just excessive.)
• Enact a speeding fines amnesty in cases where fines were more a matter of revenue collection than road safety. (Are you going after the Jeremy Clarkson vote or something?) 
• Limit fines for overstaying in car parks to a maximum of the cost of the day rate for parking in the facility. (What if you stay longer than a day?)
  
• Establish the concept of restorative justice with the imposition of substantial financial penalties on criminals in order to compensate victims and pay for damage done to property. (What crimes are we talking about here? Because those who steal often do so because they have no money...)
  
• Put in place a zero tolerance approach towards illegal drug possession for personal use through the use of a full range of alternative punishments, rather than prison sentences. (Prohibition doesn't work. For proof, see Mexico. And what 'alternative punishments'?)

Education

The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Re-instate the teaching of ‘Classical’ subjects in every school. (What do you mean by 'classical'? Do you mean stuff like Latin? Because Latin is almost entirely useless.)
• Allow schools to elect to use supervised corporal punishment as a “punishment of last resort” instead of ‘Exclusions’. (Seriously? You want to reintroduce corporal punishment? There's no better way to say 'violence is bad' to a young child than beating them...)
•  Re-instate mandatory Christian religious education in schools. (Fuck off. I'm not religious. Almost none of my friends are. Many people in this country are either irreligious or believe in a different God. The days of Christian Britain are over. And the nation is much the better for it. Now deal with it.) 
• Seek sanctions for schools that refused to comply with their obligation to assemble pupils for an act of daily worship.  Such acts of worship should be Christian. (I would personally go to each and every one of those schools and shake the hand of the headmaster. You should not brainwash children to believe your lies. Every child has the right to make up their own mind.)
• Ensure that the United Kingdom’s Christian heritage is properly reflected in the National Curriculum. (We all know Britain used to be Christian. We have the blood on our hands to prove it. The Crusades were so noble...)
• Ensure that proper balanced teaching and debate occurs in schools around the concepts of ‘Evolution’ and ‘Creation/Design in the universe’. (Well that would be a fucking quick debate wouldn't it. Creation/Design has no place in the science room. Evolution is a theory based around quantifiable and observable evidence in nature. C/D is based solely on faith in a book written by men a few thousand years ago. A book that says the Earth is younger than two separate instances of the agricultural revolution.)
• Ensure that schools are not forced to change their values by employing those who disagree with those values. (So they can't hire atheists, muslims or anyone who isn't christian? Going to find it difficult to get the science teachers then...) 
• Call a halt to plans to give sex education lessons in Primary Schools. (I had sex ed in P7 [last year of primary for those not in Scotland] and I've not become some kind of sexual predator...)
• Ensure that chastity before marriage and faithfulness within marriage - as the best and safest sexual practice - will be taught as an integral part of any sex education curriculum. (Abstinence is only a small part of that. And wake up. This is the 21st C, people have always had, and always will have, sex before marriage. If God wanted us to not do it, then why did he make it so fun?)
• Call for the end of the promotion and teaching in schools of homosexuality as a family relationship. (Seriously now, you can go and take a running jump off a cliff now. People are gay. It is the way they are born. Those who are should be told that it is perfectly natural for them to act upon it.)
• Abolish SATs testing. (Agreed)

Health
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Sell off state owned hospitals and healthcare facilities to private sector healthcare providers. (The NHS works. It is well regarded throughout the world. We are 20th in the table for life expectancy. Partly because everyone can get to see a doctor.)
• Contract in services from private sector healthcare providers in order to maintain and improve the National Health Service provision. (It'd get worse. And more expensive.) 
• Make private health insurance a visa requirement for migrants. (No. We're moving into uncomfortable territory here. If they pay taxes, then they are entitled as humans, to use the NHS' services.)
• Review Health and Safety legislation and reduce them to more appropriate levels. (They're fine! Stop reading the fucking Daily Mail. No schools have to wear goggles to play conkers.)
• Give parents knowledge and decision making rights regarding the medical treatment of their children. (No. Doctors are trained professionals who know what they are doing. Parents are terrified and ignorant, too scared of making the wrong decision to make any decision. Leave it to people who can look at the case objectively)

Immigration
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Place European Union migrants on no more than the same footing as those from the Commonwealth nations. (Sorry, but that's against EU law. We'd get fined millions, if not billions, of pounds. And it's stupid)  
• Support deportation for economic migrants convicted of imprisonable offences. (What about that whole 'forgiveness' thing that God and Jesus talk about so much?)
• Maintain tight border controls. (We do. We let in people we need. Well, we did when we were governed by people who ignored the Mail anyway...) 
• Support measures for the intensive processing for removal of all illegal immigrants that do not qualify for amnesty. (They're illegal immigrants. We already try to remove them you morons. It's finding them that's the problem.)

Environment
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will: 

• Call for the restoration of Sunday as a day of rest, to allow reflection by individuals and communities on the role they have to play.  A re-ordering of values is needed. (What has that got to do with the environment? And no. We're not all Christian in this country.)

Government & Democracy
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Support radical cuts in the public-sector workforce in order to reduce both the size of government and the size of the government spending. (But the public sector does a good job. Sorry, did a good job. At least till the Tories burned them all. They are far better value than the private sector is. And they are more likely to support ideas that help the environment etc as they do not look for profits.) 
• Support a radical re-employment and training programme so that public-sector workers are not thrown on the ‘scrap heap’, but are empowered for a smooth transition into the private sector. (Where are these jobs going to come from? Trees?) 
• Call for withdrawal from the European Union in the event that the United Kingdom electorate votes against the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum. (But the EU nets us quite a lot of money in trade. Why would we leave? If we're on the inside at least we can try to change its flaws, i.e. its hugely undemocratic nature)
• Call for voting in civic elections to be compulsory, and non-voting to be subject to a fine. (No dice. It's just not right to force people to vote. It is the duty of the parties to ensure that people trust them enough to vote.)

Respect for the Human Person
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Reject all attempts to re-define marriage. (I'm guessing this refers to gay marriage. In which case, I hate you.)
• End the practise of human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. (But if organs can be cloned, then we could potentially cure such things as cancer.)
• Oppose moves to impose abortion on Northern Ireland. (Your wording suggests that all women will be forced to have abortions. And your idea is stupid. Fetuses are not babies. They are a collection of cells that could not survive outside of the womb. They are not yet people. They barely even look like people. More like an HR Gieger kind of thing. And they are unaware of anything. They don't even have brain connections.)
• Withdraw government aid from any agency which promotes abortion or euthanasia. (Oh piss off.)
• Challenge the culture of death by seeking legislation which confers the full protection of the law on all human life from the conception until natural death. (A 'culture of death'? Yeah, because the Biblical world is a far happier, less death-filled place...)

Defence
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Maintain a wll resourced military with a nuclear deterrent. (But we don't need a nuclear deterrent. We'll never use it. No-one would bother attacking us for a start. What would be the point? We're not exactly the superpower we used to be. Might as well save the £8bn)
• Withdraw British troops from Afghanistan. (We're there now. We have to stick it out now. We can't just leave the Afghans in the lurch to be controlled by the Taliban again.)

Well, that's that. There are a few policies that are good, but I didn't want this post to challenge War & Peace in length...

Rewarding students for corporate skills is a mockery of the education system.

Earlier today, the Guardian reported that  "Some UK universities are considering awarding students in all subjects extra marks to their degrees if they can show "corporate skills" or experience in the jobs market". The essential gist of this article is that several Universities are experimenting with ideas based around increasing the grades of students who can carry out work placements and similar things during the course of their degree.

  This concept is suggested not just for those degrees that associate with a particular career -such as teaching or engineering - as these degrees already require a certain amount of work experience. This is acceptable, and indeed common sense; it is necessary to have practical experience teaching children, and for your abilities in such a field to be tested before a teaching diploma is granted. But this scheme looks at applying a similar idea to English degrees.

  This scheme is proposed along what seems to be a positive line of thought; students go to University to prepare for work, so encouraging them to gain more skills that would help them in the workplace is praiseworthy.

  But this is not the case. The point of University is not to prepare students for the world of work. The point of University is to teach students a particular subject. In some cases, for instance a Marketing degree, these two issues overlap and teaching becomes a preparation for the workplace. But the point of many degrees, especially Arts degrees such as English, is to teach about a specialised area. I study History. Last semester, for instance, I studied Inter-war Europe. I did not study anything that was particularly marketable - unless, of course, I choose to work in the field of Inter-war European history. Of course, I developed many skills that will probably help me in the workplace - public speaking, writing and so on. But the point of this course was not to develop these skills for monetary gain. It was to develop these skills, a worthy goal in itself.

  What this development would mean for Universities is that they would, once again, take a step towards simply being marketing tools, a place to turn young people into workers. The value of a University degree is how much money it can make for the holder, when the real value of the degree should be about the learning itself - the spread of culture and knowledge. If this helps a student find a job, then this is good. But it should not be the sole purpose of a degree. Similarly, if students want to earn workplace experience while studying for a degree, this should certainly be encouraged, but with a better diploma.

  At my University, and doubtless every other university around the country, there are a number of mature students. One of them is an elderly woman, perhaps in her 70s or 80s. This illustrates my point - Firstly, Universities are not exclusively a way for young people to gain a better job. Many mature students go to university to enhance themselves, to develop through learning. It is stupid to assume that young people do not want the same thing. Ask this 80 year old woman why she is studying for a degree; I doubt the answer will be because she wants to earn more money.

  This scheme is Capitalism at its worst. Learning should be worthwhile in of itself, and forcing English students to gain work experience to get a better grade is patronizing and distracting. The job of a University is to teach, and while facilities should be available to help students prepare for "real" work, it should be up to them when and if they use them. You have no idea why they are studying, or what kind of life they want to get out of their degree, and you have no right to dictate that their studies should be aimed singularly at ways of making money.

A reply to Cristina Odone

I wrote this as a reply to Cristina Odone's article in the The Telegraph, entitled "The Coalition must protect the right to be true to our Christian faith"

 I’m not a religious person; I’ll be honest about that. It’s not something I hide; I’ve been an Atheist since I was 16. And there’s no need for me to hide it – I don’t fear any serious reprisal against me because of this. However, while I personally do not believe in God, I agree that this country should not discriminate against those who do. As Cristina Odone writes, there is often a disproportionate attack on the Christian faith in this country, compared to the reaction to other religions, at least in the area of law.

  However, having conceded this, I wish to argue with the main points Cristina Odone puts forward in her Telegraph article. Firstly, of course, I would highlight the differences between the persecution of British Christians, and the persecution of Christians in other locations around the world. The persecution of anyone, anywhere, for holding a moderate religious belief is appalling, and I commend any journalist who draws attention to the killing or injuring of innocents simply because of their religions. But these atrocities are, as the author herself points out, atrocities that put the British experience in perspective. To compare the terrorist attacks against Christians around the world with the treatment they receive in Britain, a country which largely operates along Christian principles, is disgusting.

  So, what exactly are the attacks on the Christian faith she perceives in Britain? What terrible events, which she willing compares to the killing of 32 Christians on Christmas day, are being carried out against good-hearted British Christian? Odone gives two examples, presumably the worst cases of persecution present in Britain today; one airline worker being banned from wearing a Crucifix to work, and a B&B owner being forced to allow homosexuals to stay in his B&B.

  Now, I may be exaggerating, but I’m pretty certain these aren’t the most vicious examples, the most disgusting cases of anti-religious persecution in this country. Indeed, in the case of Miss Eweida, the airline worker, the banning of her crucifix was part of the airline’s uniform policy, not an attack on Christianity. Indeed, while I may be out-of-touch with religion these days, it was never my understanding that idolatry was necessary to Christianity. In the second case, the Bed and Breakfast incident, this was also not a religious attack – it is against the law to ban people from using your business because you don’t agree with their sexuality, the same as if he had banned an interracial couple. Indeed, imagine someone else refused a Christian couple access to their premises; would such a virulent defense of the hotelier’s rights be launched then?

  In either case, these incidents are hardly comparable to the persecutions religious people suffer around the world on a daily basis, nor is it even comparable to the many abuses that minority religions suffer here, in our apparently “Great” Britain. But the author moves on; next, an argument Christianity should be defended on cultural grounds. After all, it has been the British religion in one form or another since conquerors brought it to us, and in its present form, since a man wanted a divorce.  Should not this rich heritage - full of the witch-hunts, of Catholic burnings, of Church support for slavery and racism – should this not be respected?

  Of course, I’m making a one-sided argument. Religion has many strong and admirable points, and a great many religious people are worthy of great praise. However, this does not mean Christianity should be forced onto everyone. It is not common sense to respect Christian values, even when these clash with the prevailing liberal consensus. By all means, if this is what you believe, you should stick to these principles. But they cannot be forced onto everyone. Church and State are separate, and religious does not – and should not – dominate British Law. Indeed, given the clashes between the two, it is hard to understand what Ms. Odone means when she suggests the two have always worked together.

  Lastly, it is not necessarily for the State to teach more about Christian values, and less about secular, or non-dominational values. A point is certainly raised, that there is often a focus on documentaries and works produced about religion, which feature factual errors. This is certainly a valid criticism to raise – if one is going to criticize or praise anything, then their work should be as accurate as possible. And furthermore, it is important children learn about Christianity in school, but no more important than that they learn about any religion; this seems a vital factor to furthering our understanding on different people, to spreading a little tolerance.

   But it is certainly not necessary that “In schools, the National Curriculum should be beefed up so that inadequate lessons in "ethics" are complemented by the teaching of the history and tenets of Christianity.” The world has moved on, and we no longer shovel religious beliefs down the throats of children, presenting them as fact. The history of Christianity is fraught with conflict and with denominational clashes. If we are to force our children to learn one particular religion, which domination? Should it be the Church of England? But, surely, this will only act to heighten Christian persecution, as the “false” teachings of Catholicism, and indeed, any other Christian faction, are derided in schools?

  I will not link a spread of religious teachings directly to the spread of bigotry, but the last “50 years of orthodoxy” that Ms. Odone is so keen to see challenged have seen massive steps forward in the areas of Civil Rights, Religious tolerance, Gender equality. Medicine has improved, the quality of life is better, science is expanding. Religion, on the whole, is not evil – most religious people would see these steps forward for what they are; progressive developments, positive steps. But if we were to teach one particular religion as fact in our schools, to enshrine it as a requirement in medicine and in law, then we would set back our progress. To give teachers, lawmakers, doctors, the power to tell others what was fact spiritually slow the progress of our country, not further it. It would encourage difference, persecution, and it would destroy the faithful.

  The place of Christianity, of any religion, is not in the centre of public life. Your religious beliefs are at the centre of your private life, perhaps. To life by a moral code, to have absolute faith in something is not wrong. But to suggest your beliefs should shape the education of our children, the making and enforcing of our laws, and the development and application of out medicine certainly is wrong. No-one has the same religious beliefs as the next person, even if they both come from the exact same Christian denomination. By all means, fight to ensure Christians are treated as fairly as any other religions. But that is not what Ms. Odone wants. What she wants is to force Christianity on the masses, to make it necessary for anyone who wants to practice law or medicine to be a Christian, to make being a Christian necessary for getting a high-school grade. That is not protecting Christians from the small prejudices shown against them in this country, it is barbaric, and it is a step back to the dark ages. To suggest Christianity is a necessary prelude to getting employment, to earning a living, is persecution at its worst, not a blow for religious protection.

Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness

FREE! Cut out and keep dartboard...

As you may have gathered from previous posts, Richard Littlejohn is not one of our favourite human beings (if that is indeed what he is. Rather than, say, a festering pile of manure that's been left out in the sun). In fact he's right down towards the bottom with Nick Griffin. This is mostly to do with his racist, misogynistic, homophobic and generally repellant views. At this juncture you could point out that well thought out and reasoned opinion is a basic human right. Which is all very true, except that none of that applies to Littlejohn's writings; based, as they are, on lies, prejudice, misinformation and incorrect assumptions. But anyway, Richard released his new addition to the Western Canon earlier this year with the not-at-all cumbersome or one-sided title of Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness. Obviously those who give it one star are right, so we'll look at the idiots who gave this rallying cry for the BNP five stars instead:

It`s pretty clear that there is a campaign to discredit this book on here (This much is true. And I thank you Amazon readers for all the incredibly sarcastic and witty fake 5-star reviews), Trouble is when you are as brutally frank and honest as Littlejohn you are going to ruffle a few feathers (Or, you're going to ruffle feathers when you lie through your teeth or are horrifically prejudiced against any/every minority. One of the two). I have no axe to grind (You can have an axe in your head if you want. I'll gladly take time out of doing this to deliver it to you post haste), I read all kinds of books (Piers Morgan as well eh?) and as an ordinary joe so much of what I`ve read in this book rings true (I presume you get your news from the Daily Mail then? Only one of you could be so ill informed in this country). Littlejohn writes it as it is (No he doesn't, he invents most of his stories out of thin air. The rest are drawn from the Daily Mail's own made-up stories). I find this book entertaining,funny and echoes the feelings of many people today who are in disbelief at what new labour have done to this country (What, lead it through the greatest economic boom in years? No? Then the improvement in education and health? Still no? Oh, then you're referring to the economic crisis. You realise that was America and the banker's fault right? Of course not. Why let the truth get in the way of a good jab at the 'loony left'...). You dont need to be a Daily mail reader to enjoy Littlejohn but it probably helps! (Well of course it does. Only Mail readers would be so stupid to think a word of what's written in here is true. 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' and all that...)

Here's another:

What I found most hilarious is that the majority of people that have rated it 1 haven't read it (Who needs  to? It's Littlejohn, we all know what will be contained therein. And it ain't better than Tolstoy no matter what he says...). It's typical Labour rubbish of claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is bigoted or racist (This would be a better defence if Littlejohn weren't bigoted and racist.). When probably his views are fair and balanced. (They aren't. I've read some of them. They're enough to make a man cry...)

I actually found the book fantastic (Can we get a lobotomy to here!). It highlighted some of the absolute nonsense that went on under Labour (Yup. Like Increasing VAT during an economic recovery. Or increasing tuition fees, whilst simultaneously making far less money available for Universities and trying to discourage foreign students from gaining access. Or cutting up to 40% from local councils. Oh, wait hang on, that was all the Tories in less than a year...). They'd rather spend money on daft diversity programmes (Those equality loving bastards!) such as encouraging more of ethnic minorities to go fishing (Actually I think they were encouraging them to go on to higher education) than spend money on cancer drugs that could have saved my father's life! (Look. NICE are in charge of all that, and they are independent. You're precious Tories are taking them away, meaning that whatever drug is currently being touted by your precious 'newspaper' [I use the term quite incorrectly] as a 'miracle' will be approved. Who cares if it is no better than placebo in proper medical trials, Mrs Bloggs says she was saved while she was on it therefore it will cure everyone and it only costs £500,000 a box...)

I'm sorry, I know I normally do 3 or so, but this time I can't. If I read any more reviews about the 'loony left frothing at the mouth' or 'nulabor' (They can't even spell Labour the British way...) I will end up on the 6 o'clock news having hacked my way through most of England. These people make me ashamed to be British, they really do. Perhaps I will come back to it at some later date, but just now, it's all too depressing...

On a lighter note, Happy 4,540,002,011th Birthday Earth, try not to get too drunk eh? And stay away from that Venus, she's not good enough for you...

Republican protest signs

Found a rather amusing site the other day of American Conservatives' protest signs, so I thought I'd mock a few of them further and share them with you all! Click on the images for a larger version:

I'm sorry but I do geography, and can confirm that too much CO2 is a pollutant. This is because of a variety of reasons I won't go into now. And besides, you wouldn't understand it anyway would you?


Also, socialism and fascism are diametrically opposed ideologies. Fascism is the furthest right of the political spectrum, socialism is left. Oh, and socialism is good...

Err... Again, fascism is on the right. You with the sign, are on the right. If you're going to suggest that Obama holds extreme political views, you could at least get the side right... I know the Nazis were called the National Socialists but were fascists, but they were tricky like that...

Actually, there's quite a big difference. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of 'journalist' as 'a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.' While a 'socialist' is defined as 'a person who advocates or practises socialism.' Socialism, for the record, is 'a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.' See? That doesn't seem so bad does it?

Yup. That's what you think it is. If there's ever a way to lose credibility faster than this then please, let me know...






I recommend the original site too, there are quite a lot of stupid signs on there with an equal number of amusing comments on them...
Well, that's all I've got for today. Come back soon for more idiot weeding!

Fox News' reply

The New York Times is reporting that Fox News has replied to the findings that I discussed this morning:

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

The New York Times goes on to mention that in the latest Princeton Review the University of Maryland was rated as amongst the 'Best Northeastern Colleges' and placed just 19th in the list of 'Best Party Schools'. Clearly the study did more 'research' than Fox did...
This is just the kind of hard-hitting journalism we've all come to expect from them. It seems to me that, rather than discrediting the study, Fox appear to have rather proved their point... But then again, this is the company that once tried to sue The Simpsons. Before they were told that The Simpsons is also made by Fox...

Fox News Viewers

A recent study has revealed that viewers of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News are the most likely to be misinformed on a variety of political news stories. The study showed that viewers were more likely to believe such utter hogwash as:

• Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• The economy is getting worse (26 points)
• Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

For some reason I am not surprised by any of this. Perhaps it's because this is the same channel that employs such great minds as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I feel so sorry for any liberal-minded person who tries to go on there to defend something sensible like the health care bill...

In a case of unfortunate timing, Mark Thompson (Director General of the BBC) has stated that he wants the impartiality rules on TV news in the UK to be laxed to allow for 'opinionated journalism'. Yes, I can totally see why that is a good idea...