By DemocracyRules
Breaking: London's Mayor 'Red Ken' Livingston Voted Out
Livingston spent years doing all the wrong things. Here's the new guy, Boris Johnson:
Here are his campaign promises
His promises are not too bad. The Communist MSM is understandably upset.
Pro Patria
It can be a heartbreaking life for British Muslim schoolchildren and their teachers. Dozens of children have simply disappeared from school without explanation, possibly into arranged marriages.
Continue reading "Dozens of Muslim U.K. Schoolchiildren Disappearing; Arranged Marriages Feared" »
More fun, fun, fun in Britain's nationalized health care system -- you know, the same kind of system that Democrats want to bring to America.
Incredible as it may seem, many patients in Brtain are denied life-saving treatments because the nationalized health care system just can't afford it. For patients who are denied treatment, what options are left? They can try to pay for some treatment themselves, but the government health care system may also slap them down for it. From the New York Times:
Continue reading "The Utopia of Nationalized Healthcare in Britain" »
Britons are waiting in ambulances outside emergency rooms for up to FIVE hours, just to help emergency rooms meet their goal of treating patients within FOUR hours. "Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats show that last year 43,576 patients waited longer than one hour before being let into emergency units. "
Of course, that means the ambulances are unavailable to answer other emergency calls.
What could possibly go wrong?
(Via Don Surber)
If sharia comes to England, will the United Kingdom long survive?
We are watching the answer unfold before our eyes.
How can it possibly be that almost 25% of Britons don't even know that Winston Churchill was a real person?
Continue reading "What is Happening to Education In Britain?" »
Let's hear it for assertive airline passengers!
London's Daily Mail reports that passengers at London's Heathrow Airport revolted when they were scheduled to fly on an airplane with its wingtip missing.
An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.
The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.
So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.
When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was "a minor revolt" as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.
A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.
Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: "We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day.
"We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip. . . . . On board, the cabin crew admitted that it was the same one as last time and that the tip had been ripped off. They assured us it didn't matter but a number of the passengers insisted that they would rather get on the next flight."
The collision happened shortly after 10pm two weeks ago when the BA011 flight to Singapore was waiting on a runway, followed by the SriLankan Airbus.
The SriLankan aircraft wing ripped through the BA flight's wing, tearing off a huge chunk and resulting in the BA jumbo being grounded.
SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip.
It added: "They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority."
I espcially like some of the comments at the Daily Mail:
Apart from missing the wing tip, would you fly with a pilot who cannot even steer his plane on the ground without hitting another one?
- Bk, EdinburghThere could have been all sorts of stresses throughout the whole wing. I would not fly on that plane until it had been repaired by the manufacturer. I think ground mechanics are not qualified to declare the aircraft safe.
- Ray B, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.When I pay 100% of the airfare, 100% of the plane is a minimum requirement.
- Et, New Iberia,LA,USA
A mother of a missing 3-year-old British girl, Madeleine McCann, is about to be named a suspect in her disappearance.
Kate McCann was questioned for almost 11 hours on Thursday, and is due back at a police station in Portimao, a town in Portugal's Algarve region, later Friday morning, family spokesman David Hughes told The Associated Press.
When asked about reports that Kate McCann would be named a suspect in her daughter's disappearance, Hughes said: "They told her last night that it would happen today. That's definite."
Poor kid.
Based on the slow pace of the investigation and the fact that small flecks of blood evidence were initially overlooked, it's hard to judge from this distance whether there are ample grounds for treating the mother as a suspect or not.
This article says DNA of a suspect was found in the apartment in Portugal where Madeleine was last seen, in an area where the suspect should not have been.
More here at a newsblog following the case.
Big government is running wild in the U.K. -- with predictably worse and worse results. Get a gander of the latest proposals from the Conservative party to save Britain's socialized medicine scheme -- along with its failing schools and failing public housing scheme:
Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.
In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles.
And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards.
Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.
The aim is a shift in the NHS towards preventing disease and ill-health rather than having to treat it.
The proposal was one of a raft of measures suggested in a review of public services, ordered by David Cameron.
The 200-page study, entitled Restoring Pride in Our Public Services, was carried out by the Conservative public services improvement policy group's review co-chaired by former health secretary Stephen Dorrell and leading educationalist Baroness Perry.
"It is inconsistent with the concept of the responsible citizen to imagine that it is realistic for citizens, having paid their taxes, to expect that the state will underwrite the health implications of any lifestyle decision they choose to make," the report states.
Along with the health proposals were a raft of suggested changes in education and housing.
Smaller schools, it has been suggested, would improve overall results.
In cases where pupil numbers are falling large schools in the centre of London and other cities would be closed, rather than smaller schools in outlying areas. Inner city pupils could be transported to schools in the suburbs and even villages to ensure they remain open.
"Schools within schools" could be created to tackle poor discipline, particularly in large schools, national targets could be reduced and struggling pupils could be forced to repeat their final year at primary school.
Former chief inspector of schools Lady Perry said: "Every time we have a cutting back of numbers in schools, the knee-jerk reaction is to close all the little village schools or suburban schools and bus all the pupils into great big city schools.
"Schools are getting bigger and bigger. All the evidence is that discipline, achievement and standards are better in small schools than they are in big ones. So why don't we instead close the great big city school if numbers start to fall and bus the children out to the villages?
Is it any coincidence that two of the biggest programs the government controls in Britain -- the medical system and the schools -- are a total mess?
When socialized medicine fails, the "solution" is to impose tighter and tighter arbitrary controls on patients.
How will those controls work? Will everyone who engages in behaviors the medical establishment deems high risk -- from high risk pregnancies to alternative lifestyles -- be denied medical care? Or will only certain unhealthy lifestyles be penalized, while other "politically correct" unhealthy lifestyles receive a free pass? The potential for abuse is staggering.
Besides, even those with very healthy lifestyles can, and do, become seriously ill. Penalizing unhealthy lifestyles will only get you so far. At some point, doctors must be able to treat successfully the inevitable diseases of birth, childhood, adulthood, and aging. That is where socialized medicine predictably fails,
And what is the proposed reward for Britons who have an excellent lifestyle? A coupon for free vegetables and a gym membership. Good grief.
You work hard, take care of your health, and save the system thousands of dollars a year and you get . . . a coupon for turnips. Nice.
It's almost funny.
Singing sensation Paul Potts, the mobile phone salesman from South Wales who "left Simon Cowell speechless and reduced fans to tears" when he came out of nowhere to win first prize in Britain's Got Talent, talks about his new-found fame and how he is still feeling "bonkers."
Here's the video from the original discovery of Paul Potts on Britain's Got Talent:
Cal Thomas writes that the England we know is vanishing:
"There'll Always Be an England" -- popular World War II song.
BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND -- Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.
The figures, making headlines in London newspapers, tell only part of the story. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there, or the thousands unknown to the government. Britain's Office of National Statistics reports that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that have become home to large numbers of immigrants, thereby altering the character of neighborhoods that have remained unchanged for generations.
Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. Officials say they do not wish to "offend" others.
Mark Steyn has been warning about this for some time. Demographics are destiny. "Mohammed" is now the second most popular boys' name in Britain, and will soon rise to number one. Unless something changes dramatically, Britain as we know it will vanish from the earth.
He tried to kill them.
In spite of it, they're still trying to save his life:
Surgeons treating the terror suspect burned in the Glasgow Airport car bomb attempt are going to use "grafts" of a skin substitute made from shark cartilage and cow tendons.
Kafeel Ahmed, 27, is being treated at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
The process is called Integra Dermal Regeneration Template. "It tricks the body into creating new skin cells," explained Steve Jeffrey, a surgeon who worked in Australia perfecting the treatment.
Silicone implanted with shark skin extracts is laid on the burns for two weeks before it is removed and replaced with a layer of skin thinner than a graft.
Although the latest technology is being used - at a cost of more than £20,000 - Ahmed is still critical and in a coma.
He is under constant armed police guard at the hospital.
Ahmed allegedly crashed a Jeep Cherokee into the terminal building at Glasgow Airport on June 30, a day after police found two unexploded car bombs in central London.
Dramatic pictures of police wrestling him to the ground appeared across the media.
Time and time again, Western civilization has shown incredible decency far beyond the call of duty.
The laws and policies of the West reflect a huge influence of Christian charity and basic human decency.
To attempt to heal those who have preyed upon innocents -- to bind up their wounds and to try to save their lives after they tried to kill you and your own -- astonishing.
Deep honor and respect belong to Scotland, to the United Kingdom, and to the West.
Deep shame belongs to the jihadists.
Whether or not they "succeed" in their attempts to destroy innocent lives, they are miserable, evil, wretched men who have created their own hell and seek to drag the rest of the world down into the same dark abyss.
Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq: The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably. As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them. We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:
Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.
"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.
Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.
The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."
"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."
Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?
Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."
But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States. The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war. Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.
Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer. Nonsense. Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.
What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight. Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost. The solution is quite simple: Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.
In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal. The margin of victory usually turns on one thing: motivation. If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.
By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.
Update: Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):
Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.
In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.
During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.
Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.
I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.
I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.
I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.
I'm finally returning to the real world after having worked 33 hours in two days.
Yep, that's a lot. Do the math.
So, what did I miss?
Islamic terrorists are still working overtime with threats and propoganda/coded messages. I'm with Ed Morrissey on this one:
So what's new? Jihadis have been making these threats since the 1990s. Most of them turn out to be busts or vaporware altogether. Other times, the threats meant nothing until after the attacks. We have to remain vigilant at all times, regardless of whether the Dadullahs of the world decide to shoot their mouths off to willing journalists.
Better yet, let's drop a Tomahawk on Dadullah's camp next time he pops his head up for his 15 minutes of Western fame.
On the plus side, the stock market seems to be doing fine.
Why can't more headlines be as quirky and charming as this one?
And here's another terrific piece, but with the wrong headline: How the world would thrive without mankind.
I expected to find a self-loathing story about how humans should just improve the world by dying off, but it's not really about that. It's a serious glimpse into mankind's lasting legacy on earth and in the solar system and universe. If you can get past the first paragraphs without taking offense, the rest of the piece is fascinating.
Six-and-half billion - and rising. That is how many humans crowd our Planet Earth. And there is no doubt that we are wreaking terrible damage on our world.
So much so that scientists talk about the "Anthropocene" - the destructive Era Of Man.
Our gases are polluting the atmosphere and warming the skies. Our chemicals taint the seas and the rivers; our farms and cities gobble up the landscape, pushing flora and fauna aside like sand before a bulldozer. Our green-and-blue world is still beautiful, but it is far from pristine.
Our mark is everywhere.
But just imagine what would happen if we were all to disappear, each and every one of us, tomorrow. That's right - think what would take place if every single man, woman and child were to vanish off the face of the Earth in an instant.
That is the bizarre premise of a new book which speculates what would happen in the days, months, years and millennia ahead if homo sapiens - surely the most extraordinary species ever to have evolved - were suddenly to be swept away.
The author, Alan Weisman, of Arizona University, does not speculate on the cause of the disappearance; this is immaterial, as this is not a book about the end of the world but about an imagined beginning - the beginning of The World Without Us, the title of his book.
The results of this huge thought-experiment are both fascinating and surprising. Fascinating for what they tell us about the impermanence of the works of man, and surprising for the simple reason that it soon becomes clear that our world would carry on regardless, indifferent to our demise.
In fact, the first things to happen after the disappearance of humanity would be very dramatic - and destructive.
Within a week, the emergency fuel supply to the diesel generators that circulate cooling water around the world's 441 operating nuclear reactors would run out.
After that, one by one, the reactors would overheat, burn, melt and in some cases explode. Several hundred Chernobyl disasters would play out, simultaneously, across the deserted world. Huge quantities of radioactive material would be released into the air, rivers and oceans.
What effect this would have on animal and plant life is unknown.
But much to everyone's surprise, the flora and fauna around the Chernobyl disaster site has thrived. The ecologist James Lovelock, a pro-nuclear Green, argues that wildlife, by and large, does not notice radiation.
Certainly, from then on, planet Earth would probably give a sigh of relief at our passing, as a spectacular environmental recovery would begin to take place. Quickly, the oceans would cleanse themselves; similarly the air, the streams and the rivers. In a remarkably short time, Mother Nature would reassert herself over her old dominions.
In the new, human-free world, a few species would do badly - the rats, cockroaches and starlings that cling to our coat-tails would suffer. So would cows, sheep and other farm animals. The human head-louse would become extinct within a year, and HIV would vanish.
In Africa, an orgy of feasting would take place as an exploding lion and leopard population guzzled its way through the continent's millions of cattle, no longer protected by the herdsmen's spears and guns.
It gets even more interesting from there. Read whole article here.
If you want to buy the book, here's the link at Amazon.
Recent Comments