Jan 302019
 

There are a bunch of people out there who jump on every single piece of ‘evidence’ they can find or construct that supposedly contradicts the evidence that the climate is changing for the warmer (and that it is mostly human activity driven).

Why?

In the beginning, some of them may have been honestly dumb, and objected to the notion of global warming simply because it challenged some of their favourite activities. After all who could believe that people could influence the climate?

And after all, what do climate scientists know? They’re just book smart and everyone knows that common sense beats book smart every time.

But over time, something else creeps in (and in some cases is there from the beginning) – a tendency to abuse the human liking for controversy to get more “hits” and a higher profile than would otherwise be the case.

And money of course.

So when you find random people on the Internet throwing rocks at the experts, bear in mind that they might just be innocently dumb or they might have an ulterior motive.

But let’s face it: They’re not after the truth no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Rusty Handrail
Nov 112018
 

Horseshit.

Normally on Remembrance Sunday, we remember the dead of all wars, but this one is a bit special – it’s exactly 100 years since the armistice that brought the killing phase of World War 1 to an end.

Around this time of year, there are often those who make grand pronouncements about the sacrifices those who fought made for some sort of noble goal – our freedom, the freedom of others, to defeat a really nasty enemy.

None of that applies to those who died in WW1; some of them may have felt they were fighting for their freedom (and our freedom). But they really fought because of the 19th century equivalent of mutually assured destruction.

Austria-Hungary and Serbia fought because of the assassination of a single man. Russia fought to support Serbia; France fought to support Russia; Britain fought to support France. And Germany fought because Austria-Hungary fought. This gross over-simplification happened remarkably quickly – all of the declarations of war occurred within about 1½ weeks.

So no great debate on the aims and goals of what the war was for then.

So whilst those who fought (and in some cases died) in wars are not to blame, not all wars were fought for good reasons – certainly you’ll find it hard to find a good reason for WWI. 

Light’s Shadow
Nov 062018
 

There are plenty of arguments to be had with the alt-right, beginning and ending with their repulsive policies. But this post isn’t about that …

I’ve encountered the alt-right’s asinine attitude to political violence before, but I was reminded about it again this morning (obviously some time ago now) with the news that someone had sent George Soros, Hilary Clinton, John Brennan, and Barack Obama a letter bomb.

Yet the alt-right would have us believe that it is the left who are more violent than the right. And both less violent than the Islamic extremists. Turns out that is not the case.

It is not even close. The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the US are perpetrated by the right-wing.

The bête noire of the far right – Antifa? Never murdered anyone; in fact if you add together all of the political murders of the far left in the US over the last 10 years it adds up to 7-8 people (2-3%) whereas the far right are responsible for over 70% of the murders.

Antifa may well be more violent than you are happy with; their purpose after all is to tackle the fascists, which isn’t done without breaking heads. But they don’t intentionally go out to murder people – so don’t be taken in by the main stream media’s portrayal of them when they are busy denying that the far right (and “alt right”) are far more violent.

Even more than those evil islamic terrorists (who are pretty much the same as the far right).

Denying your own side’s violent actions and pretending it is the other side who are really the violent ones is classic gaslighting.

Ruins
Oct 202018
 

So an important journalist for the Washington Post is dead; he goes into a Saudi consulate and is never seen again alive.

So how was he killed?

Rogue Killers.

So we are expected to believe that a bunch of “rogue killers” happened to be wandering around a Saudi consulate? And decided to kill Khashoggi?

I don’t think so.

It is possible that the “rogue killers” were Saudi intelligence operatives who killed Khashoggi. But that doesn’t qualify as “rogue killers” in the conventional sense of the term – if Saudi intelligence operatives killed Khashoggi then the Saudi government is responsible for his killing even if they specifically prohibited the killing

Interrogation Accident

Really?

That’s one rough interrogation; or did they mean torture? My instinctive first thought is “lie”; it smacks of an after the fact excuse.

Of course you could have an accidental death during an interrogation, but it is a very low probability and ultimately it is still the same Saudi Arabia killed Khashoggi.

Fight during a rendition

The latest “excuse” is that Khashoggi was killed during a fight; possibly during a botched attempt at rendition (what a government calls kidnapping). Which would seem to be balderdash.

If there was a room full of Saudi intelligence operatives waiting for Khashdoggi when he arrived at the embassy, then his death is what they intended. There may well have been a fight – who wouldn’t fight if they suspected they were about to be killed? But with overwhelming force available, if death occurred, that is what was originally intended.

So, we know that Saudi Arabia murdered a prominent journalist presumably because he was an embarrassment. After all not only was Khashdoggi an important journalist but also a member of the Saudi establishment. And it is one thing for an outsider to criticise Saudi policy, but an insider to do so is far more embarrassing,

Of course Trump is going to believe anything the Saudis say because to believe that Khashdoggi was murdered by the Saudis would require the sort of action that would put some very big business contracts at risk. To be fair to the funky-haired orange goblin, this doesn’t make him any different to most of the world’s leaders. 

Winter Seafront
Aug 042018
 

There is now in the USA a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts called QAnon who are followers of the fictional mole within the “Deep State” called “Q”. They are of course all followers of Trump, and are all too quick to believe in some of the most inane political conspiracy theories :-

  1. The “Deep State” is planning a coup to unseat Trump.
  2. North Korea is a puppet state controlled by the CIA.
  3. Certain members of the Democrat party have hired MS13 to murder rivals within the Democratic party.
  4. The Mueller investigation is actually on Trump’s side and is secretly investigating child sex rings within the Democratic party.
  5. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros are trafficking children and are also planning a coup.
  6. J.P. Morgan sank the Titanic.

They also believe that their source Q will eventually reveal the secrets of the universe.

It is clear that QAnon are deeply stupid and deeply ignorant people; in fact dangerously stupid and ignorant. One supporter when asked if they had any evidence that Q was for real, answered with a No, but added there was also no evidence that Q wasn’t real.

Which is itself evidence that at least one Q believer is dangerously stupid and ignorant. And it probably goes for the whole crew – after all believing the partial list of ridiculous conspiracy theories is evidence enough of stupidity.

And of course they’re all Trump supporters – you would have to be stupid to vote for someone against your own interests.

Of course Q is just a troll to expose just how stupid some Trump voters are, which I know because I taught Q everything they know; I’m P.