Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under

The fate of carbon trading in Australia rests with the centre left

2008-07-07T00:11:00.001+10:00

The ABC is Australia's government owned broadcasting service. It is similar to the BBC and PBS and, like those two organisations, takes a leftist position on matters political, social and environmental.

Thus, it was something of a surprise to see the ABC's chief political correspondent Chris Uhlmann give his candid view of global warming on Insiders (which, by the way, is the best political talk show in Australia by a country mile).

Here's the segment from the show. Watch from the 3 minute mark: "As a former seminarian..."

The release of the Garnaut Report last Friday, with its clear statement that Australia must slash its greenhouse gas emissions by introducing a carbon trading system in 2010, got all sides of politics worked up.

The loopy left and Big Green, salivating at the prospect of inflicting socialist policies leading to serious economic damage on a 'capitalist' nation, cried that 2010 was too far away.

The conservative side of politics has hardened its resolve that a trading scheme that operates locally while developing nations such as China, Brazil and India are allowed to continue apace is economic suicide given Australia's reliance on energy export markets and brown coal for power.

Interestingly, the climate change battle is going to be waged in the 'sane centre' of the left and the fight will be against their Marxist shipmates.

Leading up to the election those people who could be described as belonging to the centre-left (such as Chris Uhlmann and Barrie Cassidy) used the former government's inaction on climate change as something to beat them over the head with.

Now that Labor is in power it's not the Coalition that these people are worried about; it's those who are prepared to inflict serious damage to Australia's economy in the name of environmental symbolism.

Perhaps, shortly after the election, these people would not have thought that the new government would undertake irresponsible, symbolic courses of action.

However there are now too many examples - from the Sorry to FuelWatch to an attack on plastic shopping bags to Japanese whaling - that those in the centre left must surely be nervous that, in fact, the government may well add another symbolic gesture notch to its political belt.

Thus, the fate of Australia rests in the hands of the sane centre left to recognise the threat to the country and act responsibly by not implementing a carbon trading system in advance of China and India.

Best of luck to them.

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday night rock 'n' roll

2008-07-06T18:54:00.002+10:00

Electric Light Orchestra, commonly abbreviated to ELO, were a rock group from Birmingham, England who released eleven studio albums between 1971 and 1986 and another album in 2001. ELO (the brainchild of Jeff Lynne) were formed to accommodate Jeff's burning desire to create pop songs with heavily classical overtones. The band's direction for most of their existence was set by Jeff Lynne who, after the band's debut record, wrote all of the group's original compositions and produced every album.

It was in the United States that the band were first successful, billed as 'The English guys with the big fiddles'. They soon gained a cult following despite lukewarm reviews back in their native United Kingdom. They were managed by agent Don Arden, father of Sharon Osbourne.

By the mid-1970s, they had become one of the biggest selling bands in music. From 1972 to 1986, ELO accumulated more combined U.K. and U.S. Top 40 hit singles than any other band in the world, with 46. The group also scored twenty Top 20 U.K. hit singles, as well as fifteen Top 20 appearances in the U.S. Billboard charts. The band also hold the record for having the most Billboard Top 40 hits of any band in U.S. chart history without ever having a #1 single.

Despite the fact that the majority of the group's material was never researched, audited and certified, ELO collected 21 RIAA awards, and 38 BPI awards.

I remember seeing ELO a couple of years ago on one of those Countdown replays that Rage has every so often on Saturday night. On the show were a few Australian acts and ELO.

The difference in talent and musical quality was stark. They really were quite a band as these three videos prove.

Mr Blue Sky

Don't Bring Me Down

Strange Magic

(Nothing Follows)

UK's police sniffer dogs to wear bootees in Muslim homes

2008-07-05T09:10:00.000+10:00

The only question is - when will the UK's cultural capitulation to a backward religion end and the country rediscover its own cultural strength?

Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear bootees with rubber soles. “We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it,” Acpo said.

Problems faced by the use of sniffer dogs were highlighted last week when Tayside police were forced to apologise for a crime prevention poster featuring a german shepherd puppy, in response to a complaint by a Muslim councillor.

Islamic injunctions warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are regarded as “unclean”.

Police dogs at present are issued with footwear only at scenes of explosions to prevent them injuring their paws on broken glass.

Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain’s leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: “In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.

“I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes.”

John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: “The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect because they cause huge friction between different communities.”

Caroline Kisko, of the Kennel Club, said: “We would not condone any attempt to make search dogs wear special clothing, which could cause them distress.”

As the following map shows, Muslims are in the less than 5% of population category in the UK. How is it, then, that they wield so much power to change policies in such negative ways?

It's no wonder that the best and brightest in Europe are fleeing to the United States, Canada and Australia etc...

(Nothing Follows)

Robert Mugabe owes his presidency to the international Left

2008-07-04T10:28:00.002+10:00

The UK Telegraph's Simon Heffer gets it right on Zimbabwe.

A few years ago, when the tyrant of Zimbabwe was moving from being wicked to being downright evil, I wrote that we should invade Harare, depose him, and supervise free elections. Invited to appear on a BBC programme to defend this stance, I was assailed by an "Africa expert" who told me that diplomatic pressure on Mugabe was bound to work, that the idea of sending the Parachute Regiment in to sort the monster out was offensively colonialist, and that I was wrong.

White liberals like him are as much to blame for the terror, starvation, brutality and genocide that now scar this once-rich and stable country. The supposedly civilised world has allowed Mugabe and his horrors to happen, mainly unchecked. Sanctions on his country merely starve those who disagree with him. Zimbabwe has all the natural, and had all the human, resources to be an example to the rest of Africa. It is now merely a symbol of what happens when a dictator takes charge, and those who might rein him in simply look away.

So it is infuriating to hear some Leftists and liberals saying, through the teeth of their post-imperial guilt, that perhaps an armed intervention is the only way to rid the world of this brute. Had this been done years ago, when they took the opposite view, how many lives might have been saved? How many productive people, black and white, would have felt able to stay in Zimbabwe, rather than flee with their talents abroad? Would it still be a country with a life expectancy in the low thirties, something not heard of in Europe since the early Middle Ages? How proud does the Left, with its stupidly romantic notions of the inviolate nature of "black freedom fighters", feel about what it has so ably helped Mugabe achieve?

Of course, even now the Leftists who are recanting cannot bear the thought of a military operation being conducted by Britain alone - not that our exploited and resource-starved Armed Forces are in a position to take out Mugabe. It is argued that there should be a UN or multinational force, something that most of us old cynics will believe only when we see it. Frankly, I couldn't care less who liberates Zimbabwe - North Korea, the Taliban or Venezuela are welcome to it: they couldn't be any worse than the incumbent.

Yet the gutlessness of our Foreign Office continues. The disastrous Lord Malloch-Brown, who is to international diplomacy what a lamp post is to a dog, said this week that it would be wrong for "the mangy old British lion" to strip Mugabe of his honorary knighthood. Let us ignore for the moment the question of whether a Foreign Office minister should insult his country so, another sign that this oaf is unfit for office. Four days later the knighthood did indeed go, on a recommendation from David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to the Queen. Mr Miliband had said just two weeks earlier that removing the knighthood was not a good idea. And the Tories are no better. This week they ordered the suspension of a prospective parliamentary candidate who made the blindingly obvious observation that the late Ian Smith was better than Mugabe. It is time these people grew up.

I know what a shock it must be to Leftists of all parties, with their uncritical adoration of African leaders from the saintly, such as Nelson Mandela, to the repulsive, such as Mugabe, to see that sometimes black people can be evil too. But that is the truth. And Zimbabwe may be the prologue to what may happen in South Africa after a decade of failure by Thabo Mbeki is followed by the rule of the dubious Jacob Zuma. It may be very uncomfortable and embarrassing for whites to intervene to stop the butchery of black tyrants. But if they don't, hecatombs of lives will be lost.

If you've never lived in Africa then you can have no sense of the corruption of the place, the power of tribalism and the lethargy of the people.

The left enabled Mugabe to snuff out his country's economic prosperity in just a couple of decades. Surely, the left doesn't think that it's OK for thugs, thieves and murderers to bludgeon their opponents into submission?

Perhaps it's exactly that feature that thrills them so much.

That's why Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che etc are still held in such high regard by the left and why Marxism can be so prevalent in society in the form of cultural relativism and environmental fundamentalism.

(Nothing Follows)

Hansen 1988 v Hansen 2008

2008-07-03T12:31:00.006+10:00

From Climateaudit comes the following graph of temperature since 1979.

The red dots are when Climate High Priest James Hansen first predicted doom and gloom for the world based on our carbon emissions in his original 1988 testimony to Congress and where it is now, 20 years later, for his current spewing forth of Climate Agitprop.

There's nothing to add, really.

Ooh, wait. There is actually.

How about a graph from Hansen's 1988 testimony showing his Scenarios A, B & C? Scenario B has been held up by the Climate Faithful as proof that climate models work. The fact that his inputs don't reflect what actually happened and that it's now miles wrong is completely ignored by those who've well and truly swallowed the Climate Kool Aid.

I've marked 1988 and 2008 with red dots so you can compare for yourself the two graphs.

(Nothing follows)

Kevin Rudd continues to underwhelm

2008-07-02T00:10:00.000+10:00

In the United States they had Jimmy Carter.

In Australia we were unlucky enough to have Gough Whitlam as our prime minister.

Both men were quite intelligent and there's no doubt that they meant well. However, their incompetence has seen them judged as the worst leaders in their respective country's history (though Carter might get pipped by James Buchanan from the mid-19th century).

It is no surprise that both are men of the left, that both were driven by an idealogical purity to create a better society and that both crashed and burned leaving society to bear the burden and their successors to clean up the mess.

I have written previously that Kevin Rudd is very likely to be considered Australia's most incompetent prime minister ever and is more Whitlam than Hawke or Keating. The more we get to see him the more certain I am that I will be proven correct.

Others are already starting to agree with me.

IT is very lucky for Kevin Rudd that a lot of those people who voted his party into power last year were too young to remember the economic shambles that existed in Australia under the Whitlam Labor government 30-odd years before.

There is a direct parallel with Barack Obama in the United States. People who did not live through the Carter days cannot conceive of how negative an influence a president can have on Average Joes and Jills.

And perhaps those who are old enough to remember believed that lightning couldn't strike twice in the same place.

Rudd would clearly like to be seen as following in the footsteps of the successful governments of former prime minister Bob Hawke and his treasurer Paul Keating, if for no other reason than under them Labor held on to power in Canberra for 13 years.

But as each day passes there is a growing similarity with the Whitlam government, which crashed after less than three turbulent years in office. That government's brief spell in power was characterised and bedevilled by arrogant incompetence.

'arrogant incompetence' exactly describes Kevin Rudd.

For five years before he was hoisted into the Labor leader's chair Rudd had carefully cultivated his image as a warm and understanding soul alongside Liberal minister, jovial Joe Hockey, on the Seven Network's Sunrise breakfast program.

When his party was swept into office last November he reassured the electorate with light-hearted patter that said, "Trust me, my name is Kevin and by the way I'm an economic conservative. In other words I am not going to do anything that is financially irresponsible."

Surprise!

This was part of his me-too campaign, which was aimed at riding on the coat-tails of the Howard government's record of sound economic management during its 11 years in power. But once in government he lost no time in attacking the conservatives as economic vandals who had recklessly driven up interest rates. The blame game which Rudd said would end with the election that consolidated Labor's grip on power all around Australia was really just getting under way in earnest.

One of the biggest challenges Rudd faces is controlling his own ego. But if you believe you are always right maybe it doesn't present itself as a task that needs addressing. Rudd's treatment of the public service as shirkers because they are not as work-obsessed as he is and his gratuitous advice to our influential neighbouring countries on how to better run their regional affairs gives substance to this conclusion.

And talking about substance this is something that seems to be noticeably lacking from many of his grand gestures and visions for the country's future. Forget the shower of ideas that rained down during Rudd's 2020 Summit earlier this year, and look at the FuelWatch debacle that was to be his solution to alleged inaction by the former conservative government on increasing petrol prices. Begrudgingly Rudd has now conceded that there is little the Australian Government can do against international pressure on fuel prices. And the fiasco around his promise to give computers to high school students across the country is quickly emerging as another case of all froth and no bubble.

It may well be that Rudd's determination to concentrate power in his office is blindsiding him from the growing pain that is being felt by the broad community. And this pain is not confined to the working families he has taken to his breast.

The sizeable swing against Labor in last weekend's Gippsland by-election -- unusually high for such a recently elected government -- may well reflect a growing resentment in the community at Rudd's failure to deliver on the expectations he has created.

While the Gippsland result will blunt any immediate pressure on Brendan Nelson's Opposition leadership it also will encourage the conservatives to lift themselves out of the despair that followed the November election defeat and start looking positively at the next federal poll due in 2010.

And this optimism is enhanced by recent opinion polling around the states showing that Labor is starting to fall out of favour with the electorate, particularly in NSW, where it has clearly had enough of the endless mismanagement of public services under the scandal-wracked ALP government.

In last year's election campaign Labor successfully attacked the Howard government for failing to listen to the concerns of the community. The conservatives will now turn this back on to Rudd by accusing him of adopting a "government knows best" philosophy that discourages freedom of choice and enterprise.

Launching a new book by Anne Henderson on conservative political pioneer Enid Lyons recently, shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull flagged a strategy focusing on freedom as an across-the-board benchmark for Liberal policy development.

"Our vision of government is to enable and to empower," Turnbull said. "Labor's is to direct and command." This sounds simplistic but Rudd's presidential style of leadership and his preoccupation with the micromanagement of government may well have the electorate wondering whether it made the right decision last year after all.

Australia needs strong leadership to address the shocking education outcomes inflicted on our children for the last 20 years, the challenge and opportunity of rising powers in the region such as India and China and the rising cost of energy that is already hurting hardest those who are least able to afford it.

Australia's go it alone attitude to addressing the non-issue of climate change is a prime example of how far out of touch with community attitudes Rudd is, let alone reality. It seems that he prefers to pander to European and United Nations institutions than do what is right for Australia.

In Kevin Rudd we do not have that strength of leadership. Unfortunately, he does not understand how limited his ability is and that will be to the detriment of all of us.

(Nothing Follows)

Lots and lots of oil for the Peak Oil worriers

2008-07-01T23:12:00.010+10:00

With oil prices at record highs Peak Oil doom and gloomers and other assorted Environmentalist Malefactors are dribbling on about how we've reached the half way point of world oil supplies and it's all downhill from here.

Naturally, they remain willfully ignorant of options like shale oil, which has the potential to produce enough oil to power the US for the next couple of hundred years. That would leave more than a hundred years for the rest of the world if we just relied on existing known reserves.

(Nothing Follows)

French fire real bullets for first time since WW2

2008-06-30T09:39:00.004+10:00

For over 50 years the French have carefully nurtured their reputation as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Preferring talk and negotiation to taking direct action has seen the French army become the butt of many jokes.

Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion - Jed Babbin

"Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day - the description was, 'Never fired. Dropped once.'" - Rep. Roy Blunt (MO).

"Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried." - Rep. R. Blount (MO).

War without France would be like, uh, World War II.

And my favourite...

"It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us." - Alan Kent.

So news overnight that the French army had actually used live bullets and injured people comes as something of a surprise:

Seventeen people, including a child left in a critical condition, were injured when soldiers fired live bullets instead of blanks during an open day display, regional officials have told AFP.

Fifteen civilians and two soldiers were injured in the incident, of which the details remained unclear, involving a demonstration by members of a marines parachute regiment of hostage liberation exercises, the regional authority said.

Four of the 17 were seriously injured, with two described as critical following "incomprehensible" scenes at the barracks near Carcassone, in the country's southwest.

According to local authorities, five children were among the injured.

Five helicopters, 11 firefighters' first-aid vehicles and two ambulances rushed to the scene to help the injured.

One soldier had been detained, although no explanation was immediately forthcoming for why the wrong ammunition was loaded into weapons.

Let's hope that everyone injured is OK.

What lesson will the French take from the incident?

Using real bullets gets people hurt.

Another 50 years of feckless pacifism seems likely in spite of Sarkozy's noise about France rejoining NATO.

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday night rock 'n' roll

2008-06-29T19:42:00.001+10:00

The Moody Blues are an English rock band originally from Birmingham. Founding members Michael Pinder and Ray Thomas performed an initially rhythm and blues-based sound in Birmingham in 1964 along with Graeme Edge and others, and were later joined by John Lodge and Justin Hayward as they inspired and evolved the progressive rock style. Among their innovations was a fusion with classical music, most notably in their seminal 1967 album Days of Future Passed.

Nights In White Satin

The Other Side Of Life

I'm Just A Singer (In A Rock And Roll Band)

(Nothing Follows)

Man in black doesn't understand half black man

2008-06-28T21:14:00.003+10:00

The perennially black-clad Phillip Adams represents all that is wrong with today's Left. Full of hatred; enablers of racism; eisablers of solutions for Aborigines; and ignorant of history, which means they lack wisdom.

And truly Morally Incompetent.

In his latest column in The Australian Adams shows that he's certainly a light of other days...

I'm grateful to a reader for giving me a great gizmo. It's a credit-card-sized clock that flashes, to the tenth of a second, the time that Bush has left in the White House.

One has to admit that it's a pretty funny gizmo to have if you're a Bush hater.

As I tap out these words Bush has 214 days, six hours, 14 minutes and 31.6 seconds left, and I'm willing the microchip to move things along; 214 days, six hours, 14 minutes and 29 seconds is still too many days, hours, seconds and tenths - more than enough time for the lame duck to remember that the presidential seal features a Roman-style eagle and behave like a headless chook. Urged on by the neo-cons and theo-cons, the worst president in history could wreak even more national and international havoc.

George W Bush will not only not be rated the worst president in history but will annoy the heck out of the left by being very highly regarded for being one of the few Western leaders who had the moral courage to take on the worst form of extremism.

So it’s better to focus on the fact that the presidential election that will replace Bush takes place in early November, two-and-a-half months before inauguration day. To stay with the avian, should Donald Duck win office as a third-party candidate the world could feel like the cat that ate the canary. Even John McCain would be a considerable improvement – despite the fact he’s abandoned all the principles that made him a “maverick”. He was for the reform of campaign funding, and pro-choice on abortion; he was against torture and took a progressive stand on illegal immigrants. These ideas, he told us, represented his core values. And he’s dumped them all in the interests of getting elected. Every other day, another 180-degree turn. Oh McCain, you’ve done it again.

If Adams would like to look up what the McCain-Feingold bill is then perhaps he wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Further, if he looked at Obama's record on the issue he'll see more flipping and flopping than a fish out of water. McCain is still against torture and he still has a 'progressive' stand on illegal immigrants so I don't know where Adams gets the idea that McCain is anything other than solid in his beliefs.

I’ve been barracking for Barack since he made his debut on the national stage with a splendid speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. So I’m hoping he’ll storm home. But as I wrote months ago, Obama faces the immense risk of assassination. During the 82 days of Bobby Kennedy’s primary campaigning it was widely believed he’d be killed. Nixon thought it highly likely, and the FBI’s Clyde Tolson thought it highly desirable (he was clearly echoing the hopes of his boyfriend, J. Edgar Hoover). Right-wing shock jocks and columnists called upon patriotic Americans to blow Bobby’s brains out – and the candidate himself, when asked what stood between him and the White House, said: “Men with guns.”

Adams 'wrote months ago' that Obama faces the 'immense risk of assassination' and compares him to Bobby Kennedy. He then goes on to talk about right-wing shock jocks while completely failing to tell us that Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, ostensibly over Kennedy's support for Israel. His brother, JFK, was killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Martin Luther King Jr was killed by James Earl Ray, a man with a criminal record including burglary, armed robbery and mail fraud. Hardly a rogue's gallery of right wing death beasts, is it? Perhaps it's Adams' own understanding of the violent instincts of the Left that lead him to fear for Obama's safety?

Otherwise Obama risks the death of a thousand cuts, the wearing down of the candidate, employing the many weapons of bigotry. Apart from the rabid, racist right who’ll call a spade a spade, much of it, most of it, will be in code. And it will appeal to the national subconscious.

It is pure projection that the right is racist. The right is perfectly happy to vote for a black man or woman for president as long as they agree with their values. That's why Michael Steele is chairman of GOPAC, for example. Who has included more African-Americans or Hispanics in senior roles than George W Bush? Certainly not any Democratic president hitherto...

It’s one thing to vote for Obama in a primary. That’s no risk. Voters can enjoy the pleasures of being progressive, of expressing the belief in a “post-racial America”. But they’re not actually sending Obama to the White House by choosing him over Clinton. They’re identifying with the movement of history – or, to use a word I detest, the zeitgeist. They can focus on all the reasons it’s time to support an African-American heavyweight in something other than rock music or boxing. It’s a feelgood thing to do.

If there's something that the Left excels at it's doing the feelgood thing. No doubt about it. Horrible outcomes but, gee, I feel good about myself for having tried.

It’s quite another thing to vote for Obama in the presidential elections. From now until election day millions of voters will be looking for reasons not to vote for him. And the Karl Rovelutionaries in the Republican camp will be doing everything they can to help.

I suppose they would. That's their job.

McCain promises a clean campaign but the opportunism he displayed in changing positions on the very issues that enabled and ennobled his career will come into play. At best he’ll claim a disapproving distance from the hate-speak and innuendo while happily accepting any electoral advantage. It’s the oldest trick in the book. And we saw in McCain’s embrace of the looniest of evangelical preachers that he’ll gratefully accept an endorsement from anyone.

Adams shows his intellectual laziness with this comment. John Hagee is no parallel to Reverend Wright and not even close. If any reasonable person was to listen to what Hagee said regarding Catholics and the Holocaust in context then it would be clear what he was talking about and that he is far from loopy.

Many voters believing themselves above and beyond racism will yield to it, in its various guises and disguises. Obama’s youth? His inexperience? His overenthusiastic pastors? His wife’s comparative radicalism? All will be used to eat away at the feeling of hope and safety that he was, in the beginning, able to provide. Barack was a walking, talking comfort zone. But the Sidney Poitier of US politics will be muddied somehow, anyhow, with the stickiest mud they can find or invent. And people will find excuses not to vote for him. Oh, it’s nothing to do with his colour! What a suggestion! God forbid! I’m all for a black president. But not this one. Not now.

The irony is that Adams is talking about Democratic Party supporters not voting for Obama because he's black! Republicans would vote for a black person whose values they agreed with in a heartbeat, which is why they were clamouring so much for Colin Powell to run.

To their eternal discredit the Clintons rehearsed some of the Republicans’ dog-whistling campaign – and in a few states it worked all too well. So Obama will be prepared. And while his dream of a campaign that transcended race is a delusion, his colour is also his greatest advantage. We’re seeing unprecedented numbers of black voters registering and kids of all colours rushing to Obama’s. But dark forces within the American psyche, somewhat repressed of late, are about to be released. Remember One Nation in tolerant Australia?

One Nation didn't beat the Labor Party, Phil, so I don't know what the comparison means.

If you talk to any young person at university and particularly those studying in the Arts faculties then they all sound like little versions of Phillip Adams. Like Adams their knowledge of history is abominable and, like Adams, they use pejorative terms against their opponents in place of the arguments that they haven't bothered to learn. Like Adams they think that being smart creates wisdom.

Obama is odds on favourite to be the next US president but not for any of the reasons Adams puts forward.

(Nothing Follows)

Climate models cop another battering

2008-06-27T08:30:00.004+10:00

Do climate models include an allowance for the destruction of ozone over the tropical Atlantic Ocean?

Let's have some time to think about that.

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock...

...No.

Large amounts of ozone -- around 50% more than predicted by the world's state-of-the-art climate models -- are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. This startling discovery was made by a team of scientists from the UK's National Centre for Atmospheric Science and Universities of York and Leeds. It has particular significance because ozone in the lower atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas and its destruction also leads to the removal of the third most abundant greenhouse gas; methane.

The findings come after analysing the first year of measurements from the new Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory, recently set up by British, German and Cape Verdean scientists on the island of São Vicente in the tropical Atlantic. Alerted by these Observatory data, the scientists flew a research aircraft up into the atmosphere to make ozone measurements at different heights and more widely across the tropical Atlantic. The results mirrored those made at the Observatory, indicating major ozone loss in this remote area.

So, what's causing this loss? Instruments developed at the University of Leeds, and stationed at the Observatory, detected the presence of the chemicals bromine and iodine oxide over the ocean for this region. These chemicals, produced by sea spray and emissions from phytoplankton (microscopic plants in the ocean), attack the ozone, breaking it down. As the ozone is destroyed, a chemical is produced that attacks and destroys the greenhouse gas methane. Up until now it has been impossible to monitor the atmosphere of this remote region over time because of its physical inaccessibility. Including this new chemistry in climate models will provide far more accurate estimates of ozone and methane in the atmosphere and improve future climate predictions.

Professor Alastair Lewis, Director of Atmospheric Composition at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science and a lead scientist in this study, said: "At the moment this is a good news story -- more ozone and methane being destroyed than we previously thought - but the tropical Atlantic cannot be taken for granted as a permanent 'sink' for ozone. The composition of the atmosphere is in fine balance here- it will only take a small increase in nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion, carried here from Europe, West Africa or North America on the trade winds, to tip the balance from a sink to a source of ozone"

Professor John Plane, University of Leeds said: "This study provides a sharp reminder that to understand how the atmosphere really works, measurement and experiment are irreplaceable. The production of iodine and bromine mid-ocean implies that destruction of ozone over the oceans could be global".

Dr Lucy Carpenter, University of York and UK co-ordinator of the Observatory added: "This observatory is a terrific facility that will enable us to keep an eye on the chemical balance of the atmosphere and feed this information into global climate models to greatly improve predictions for this region in the future".

No matter that the world is cooling and that models are yet to get anything right even once. Let's spend trillions of dollars anyway.

How will the James Hansens and Al Gores and Nicholas Sterns and Tim Flannerys be viewed in years to come?

Not well, I suspect.

Probably in the same light as eugenics advocates.

(Nothing Follows)

Demographic survey results give Obama the edge

2008-06-26T07:46:00.005+10:00

Rasmussen Reports does some fascinating work in the field of political surveys.

Here are the summaries from June's Demographic factors:

June 25, 2008: Just 22% now say the McCain is too old to be President, down from 30% who held that view earlier. Forty-one percent (41%) continue to believe that Obama is too inexperienced.

Age will probably not be that much of a factor in this election. There are too many hot issues that will frame the debate.

June 23, 2008: Currently, Obama and McCain are essentially even among men while the Democrat leads by twelve among women. McCain leads 49% to 42% among White Voters but trails 93% to 3% among African-American voters. Among voters who see economic issues as most important this year, Obama leads 59% to 32%. As for those who view national security issues as most important, McCain leads 59% to 37%.

How amazing is that? McCain trails 93%-3% among African-American voters. That really does show how much race is a factor this year. What's equally amazing is that Obama has such a big lead on economic issues given that every policy he's ever supported has pretty much come from Karl Marx's handbook.

June 22, 2008: New data released today shows that 63% of voters think McCain views U.S. society as generally fair and decent. Forty-five percent (45%) believe Obama holds that same view.

Again, if the economy was going very well then this might affect people's vote.

June 19, 2008--McCain leads among voters who earn $40,000 to $75,000 a year. Obama leads among those who earn less than $40,000 annually and those whose income tops $75,000.

Now, that is amazing. The average American supports McCain. The poor and the well-to-do support Obama. The less well off I can understand but it still amazes me that educated, high earning people do not understand that an Obama presidency would not only reduce their income but reduce the poor's income, as well.

June 15, 2008--Obama is viewed favorably by 58% of women and 50% of men. McCain earns favorable reviews from 54% of men and 50% of women.

June 14, 2008--Obama is viewed favorably by 58% of women and 52% of men. McCain earns favorable reviews from 54% of men and 51% of women.

Among voters under 30, 62% have a favorable opinion of Obama. Those ratings decline steadily by age—just 49% of seniors (65+) have a favorable opinion of the Democratic candidate. McCain is viewed favorably by 59% of seniors, his highest rating from any age group. His weakest reviews come from 30-somethings. Among these young adults, 49% have a favorable opinion of the Republican standard bearer.

Few surprises are seen on a partisan basis. Obama is viewed favorably by 82% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans. McCain is viewed favorably by 81% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats. For all the talk of post-partisanship, the campaign is shaping up so far along fiercely partisan lines. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, McCain is viewed favorably by 55%, Obama by 51%.

Given those figures you would have to say that Obama is looking good in November. The fact is that the young don't get out to vote so that's no advantage but that will be made up by the lead Obama holds in the 30s age bracket.

June 13, 2008--Obama attracts 84% of political liberals while McCain is supported by 76% of conservatives. While there are more conservatives than liberals in the nation today, Obama also enjoys a twenty-eight point advantage over McCain among moderates.

The moderates will decide the election and if he holds a 28 point lead through to the election then he'll have a clear win.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters say federal spending will increase if Obama is elected and 33% say the same will happen if McCain wins. Forty-five percent (45%) say taxes will increase if there is a President Obama. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say tax hikes will result from a McCain Administration.

It's strange that people reckon taxes and spending will increase under Obama but trust him more on economic issues.

Voters see a clear distinction between the two leading candidates on the issue of Iraq. Eighty-one percent (81%) say Obama is more interested in getting troops home from Iraq than finishing the mission. Seventy-four percent (74%) say that McCain is more interested in finishing the mission An earlier survey found that 52% of voters say getting the troops home is the higher priority.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say McCain is a better leader than Obama while 38% hold the opposite view. When asked which candidate has personal values closer to their own, 43% name McCain and 42% say Obama.

June 12, 2008--Obama currently leads by eleven points among women but trails by a single point among men (including leaners). Thirty-nine percent (39%) of women say they are certain they will vote for Obama in November. Another 10% say they would vote for him today but could change their mind, and 3% are leaning towards voting for Obama. For McCain those numbers are 30% certain, 8% who could change their mind, and 3% leaning towards voting for him.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of men are certain they will vote for McCain while 34% say the same about Obama.

Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. The numbers for McCain are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Among women, Obama is viewed favorably by 57%, McCain by 52%. Among men, McCain earns positive reviews from 56%, Obama from 54%.

Opinions are held more strongly about Obama--33% have a Very Favorable opinion of the Democratic hopeful while 27% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion. For McCain, those numbers are 18% Very Favorable and 18% Very Unfavorable. As with the topline numbers, these ratings reflect a slight softening for Obama and little change for McCain.

June 10, 2008--In December, before the Iowa caucuses launched Obama’s successful campaign for the nomination, the Illinois Senator was seen as politically liberal by 47% of voters nationwide. By April, that number had grown to 54%. Today, 67% see him as politically liberal including 36% who say he is Very Liberal.

A similar pattern is seen for John McCain. The presumptive Republican nominee was seen as politically conservative by 31% of all voters in December, by 41% in April, and by 57% today. Just 19% say he is Very Conservative.

These numbers reflect much more movement than was seen by the more established candidates running four years ago. While the number seeing Obama as liberal has already shifted by twenty percentage points, John Kerry’s numbers shifted just eight points in a roughly comparable time frame. Kerry was seen as politically liberal by 37% in January 2004 and by 45% in May 2004. By the end of Election 2004, 53% saw Kerry as politically liberal.

McCain’s numbers have shifted even more than Obama’s this year—twenty-six percentage points so far. Four years ago, President Bush was seen as politically conservative by 48% in January and 57% in May. That’s a shift of just nine points. By the end of Election 2004, 64% saw Bush as politically conservative.

It’s worth noting that both Bush and Kerry experienced as much of a shift from May to October as they did in the first part of the year. It is certainly reasonable to assume that more changes are ahead for McCain and Obama. Rasmussen Reports will be tracking this data on a weekly basis to monitor ongoing movement.

June 9, 2008--Obama is supported by 81% of Democrats and now holds a very modest three-point edge over McCain among unaffiliated voters. Both those figures reflect a significant improvement over the past week. McCain attracts 83% of Republicans Still, 30% of all voters either have no preference at this time or could change their vote before Election Day.

June 7, 2008--Obama’s bounce is primarily the result of Democrats beginning to unify behind his candidacy. For the first time all year, Obama is supported by 80% of Democrats over McCain. In recent months, his support from Democrats has typically been in the high-60’s or low-70’s range.

McCain is supported by 84% of Republicans and holds an eight-point lead among unaffiliated voters. The bad news for McCain is that there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans. Obama’s party now enjoys a ten-percentage point advantage in terms of party identification.

June 5, 2008--As the General Election season begins, Obama attracts 96% of the African-American vote while McCain holds a thirteen-point lead among White voters. Obama leads by nine among voters of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, primarily Latino voters (these figures are based upon the results including leaners).

Obama leads by a two-to-one margin among voters under 30 and holds a significant lead among 30-somethings. McCain has the edge among those 40 and older, attracting the votes from 50% of these voters.

McCain leads by ten percentage points among White Women. However, Obama has the edge among White Women Under 40 while McCain enjoys a substantial advantage among older White Women.

Government employees are essentially evenly divided between the two candidates. McCain has a 53% to 39% advantage among Entrepreneurs while Obama leads 50% to 41% among those who work for someone else in the Private Sector.

From a partisan perspective, McCain attracts 83% of Republicans while Obama is supported by 76% of Democrats. McCain has an eight-point advantage over Obama among unaffiliated voters. Keep in mind that many of this year’s unaffiliated voters were Republicans four-years ago. The number identifying with the GOP has declined from just under 37% in 2004 to 31% today. At the same time, many unaffiliated voters from four years ago, now consider themselves to be Democrats.

June 4, 2008--As the General Election season begins, Obama attracts 96% of the African-American vote while McCain holds a thirteen-point lead among White voters. Obama leads by nine among voters of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, primarily Latino voters (these figures are based upon the results including leaners).

Obama leads by a two-to-one margin among voters under 30 and holds a significant lead among 30-somethings. McCain has the edge among those 40 and older, attracting the votes from 50% of these voters.

McCain leads by ten percentage points among White Women. However, Obama has the edge among White Women Under 40 while McCain enjoys a substantial advantage among older White Women.

Government employees are essentially evenly divided between the two candidates. McCain has a 53% to 39% advantage among Entrepreneurs while Obama leads 50% to 41% among those who work for someone else in the Private Sector.

Yesterday's Gallup Poll shows that Obama and McCain are even at 45% each.

While things are going well in Iraq McCain has a chance in November but he will need the economy to show some improvement from its current lethargic state.

The Republican brand has been hurt on a number of fronts but especially by their own hand in the form of undisciplined spending. McCain has fought hard to maintain his 'maverick' image in order to not be seen as an extension of Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats are referring to a McCain presidency as "George Bush's third term" and the Republicans are saying that Obama represents Jimmy Carter's second term. That won't work, especially as too many voters don't remember what an unmitigated disaster Carter was not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world.

As things stand Obama has a clear edge over McCain.

(Nothing Follows)

It's time to put James Hansen on trial for fraudulent science

2008-06-25T07:15:00.002+10:00

So Al Gore stooge and Climate High Priest James Hansen now wants to put oil company CEOs on trial for 'crimes against humanity'?

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.

You mean the James Hansen whose software code is so robust and whose algorithms are so sound that he is 99% certain that we're all doomed?

Luckily for the real world, Steve McIntyre has been doing yeoman's work analysing Hansen's code:

Here are some more notes and scripts in which I’ve made considerable progress on GISS Step 2. As noted on many occasions, the code is a demented mess - you’d never know that NASA actually has software policies (e.g. here or here . I guess that Hansen and associates regard themselves as being above the law. At this point, I haven’t even begum to approach analysis of whether the code accomplishes its underlying objective. There are innumerable decoding issues - John Goetz, an experienced programmer, compared it to descending into the hell described in a Stephen King novel. I compared it to the meaningless toy in the PPM children’s song - it goes zip when it moves, bop when it stops and whirr when it’s standing still. The endless machinations with binary files may have been necessary with Commodore 64s, but are totally pointless in 2008.

Because of the hapless programming, it takes a long time and considerable patience to figure out what happens when you press any particular button. The frustrating thing is that none of the operations are particularly complicated.

There's much more of that at Climateaudit, one of the most important sites on the web today in the field of climate science.

I’m finally stating to come up for air after dealing with the fetid grubs and maggots of Hansen’s code. Needless to say, key steps are not mentioned in the underlying publications, Hansen et al 1999, 2001. I’m not going to discuss these issues today. Instead, I want to show 3 case studies where I’ve been successful in replicating the Hansen adjustment. In the more than 20 years since Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 and the nearly 10 years since Hansen et al 1999, to my knowledge, no third party has ever examined Hansen’s adjustments to see if they make any sense in individual cases. Some of the adjustments are breathtakingly bizarre. Hansen says that he doesn’t “joust with jesters”. I guess he wants center stage all to himself for his own juggling act.

NASA recently had to correct an error in Hansen's work after McIntyre pointed out an error. The result was that the warmest year in the US record now belongs to 1934 not 1998.

The fact is that Hansen has been fudging the temperature data for many years and the consequence has been to increase apparent recent warming.

It's climate scientists like Hansen who should be put on trial. Because of people like him money that could be used for worthy causes such as those listed at the Copenhagen Consensus Centre go unfunded.

I've pointed out previously that James Hansen will be remembered in history alongside other scientific fraudsters such as Lysenko and Hwang. The sooner his scam is exposed to the world the better off we'll all be.

(Nothing Follows)

Aussies fatter, drunker and carry more STDs than ever before

2008-06-24T13:58:00.005+10:00

A report released today highlights an important social issue:

Australians are fatter, drunker and have more sexually transmitted diseases than ever before...

The truth is that those things are connected.

Women are getting fatter. Men need to drink more to be interested in sex. More alcohol means less chance of remembering to practice safe sex. Thus, more are getting sexually transmitted diseases.

That seems a reasonable enough connection to me.

The report includes:

AIHW director Penny Allbon said about 7.4 million Australians were overweight and almost one-third of those were obese.

That's about 2.5 millions obese people.

From a report dated 20 June:

Almost four million Australians are obese, according to a comprehensive study.

Can someone please make up their mind about the real figure? It sounds like they've pulled a number out of their clacker for the purpose of scaring/forcing us all into action. And if the study that found that 4 million of us are obese was 'comprehensive' then what was the study from the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare's study showing 2.5 million?

According to a report in The Age on 20 June says:

AUSTRALIA has overtaken the United States as the world's most obese nation, a new report says.

The report, Australia's Future Fat Bomb, says 26 per cent of adult Australians - almost 4 million people - are now obese, 1 million more than the last calculation in 1999.

Woohoo! First the America's Cup and now, after years of stuffing our faces with pies and chips, we can claim the World's Fattest Nation title. Brings a tear of pride to a patriot's eye...

Naturally, the government is going to tackle the crisis in the same feckless way it's going about dealing with high fuel and grocery prices - by forming a committee to look into taking action sometime. According to Health Minister Nicola Roxon:

Obesity was a national priority and the government hoped to have an effective nation-wide strategy implemented in the next 12 months, Ms Roxon said.

A government-initiated inquiry into obesity would consider a range of measures, including gym membership rebates, Ms Roxon said.

"We expect to have a full comprehensive strategy in place by the middle of next year ... obviously this (report) increases the urgency for that work to be undertaken."

Rebates on gym membership. That's the ticket! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

The whole issue is, of course, a stalking horse for the anti-fast food fascists who want us all to eat lentil soup and spinach as our staple diet.

A Deakin University academic told the inquiry a tax on junk food and reducing junk food advertising targeting children was essential.

Professor Boyd Swinburne, the director of the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, said a junk food tax could be offset by subsidies on healthy foods.

Taxing junk food first emerged earlier this year at the Rudd Labor government's 2020 idea summit.

Taxing food is an idea from the 2020 Summit?

Is there anything that it wasn't suggested should be subject to a tax at the Summit?

(Nothing Follows)

Climate common sense still prevails among the British

2008-06-23T08:19:00.002+10:00

How does it come about that most Britons don't believe that humans are the cause of climate change given the propaganda bombardment from those who stand to gain the most from the imposition of a carbon tax on Western societies?

From one of the world's most left wing major papers, The Guardian, comes this article describing the results of a recent survey:

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

To those of us who know what a scam global warming catastrophism is it comes as no shock at all that 'campaigners' (aka left wing political activists) were shocked that the years of hard work indoctrinating the public with their loopy ideas has had little effect.

The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.

It is completely impossible for any Western country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent in 12 years. Impossible.

The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.

'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'

As oil prices rise that potential is becoming reality and represents a huge problem for governments who are trying to take their countries back to the 1920s.

There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.

It's amazing, isn't it, that the left's massive propaganda campaign could be defeated by a one hour video, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and one book that questions the consensus.

However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'

In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'

The population of Europe is in the process of having an unwanted European Constitution shoved down their throats by an undemocratic, unrepresentative European Union. They are highly sensitised to the ability of multinational organisations to make things worse for them. Thus, they view what the IPCC, a UN body, promotes with justifiable suspicion.

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.

Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.

That's right. You must have gone to university and been immersed in the left wing claptrap that pervades campuses and curricula to be fooled by the climate change argument. The reason is that people who have been to university are more likely to believe authority figures and experts than those who are less educated. Therefore the '2,500 scientists agree' argument carries weight.

'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.

More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.

See? Two thirds of people still have common sense. That must drive the left nuts.

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday night rock 'n' roll

2008-06-22T18:12:00.002+10:00

Devo (pronounced DEE-vo or dee-VO, often spelled "DEVO" or "DEV-O") is an American New Wave music group formed in Akron, Ohio in 1973. They are best known for their 1980 hit "Whip It", which made it to #14 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Their style has been variously classified as punk, art rock and post-punk, but they are most often remembered for their late 1970s and early 1980s New Wave sound which, along with others (such as Gary Numan, Peter Gabriel, and The B-52's) ushered in the synth pop sound of the 1980s.

Devo's music and stage show mingle kitsch science fiction themes, deadpan surrealist humor, and mordantly satirical social commentary via sometimes-discordant pop songs that often feature unusual synthetic instrumentation and time signatures, and their work has proved hugely influential on subsequent popular music, particularly New Wave and alternative rock artists.

Devo was also a pioneer of the music video, creating many memorable clips that were popular in the early days of MTV, although their use of the video medium dates right back to their very first appearance on stage at Kent State University in 1973, which was recorded with an early black-and-white portable video system.

Some years ago, I'd just had lunch with one of my female business contacts and we'd returned to my car. When I turned on the ignition the CD started playing the B-52s. She said, "The B-52s; I used to go to parties with them." Obviously, I asked how that would come about. Apparently, when she lived in the US she had dated one of the members of Devo. I then asked what they were like. She said that she started with plastic hair, smiled and walked to her car. I never did find out.

Whip It Good

Beautiful World

Freedom Of Choice

(Nothing Follows)

Indian woman mistakes rapist for husband

2008-06-21T08:11:00.001+10:00

One of the great things about reading the papers from India, Pakistan and Turkey etc is the wonderful use and occasional mangling of the English language that takes place.

This article from The Times of India reports on an Indian woman who let a man rape her because she thought he was her husband.

NAGPUR: In a bizarre incident, a 20-year-old woman in a village around 9 kilometres away from Kalameshwar near here, initially mistook her rapist for her husband, and let him have intercourse with her, while her husband slept only a few feet away from her. However, realising her mistake, she soon raised an alarm, and her husband chased the miscreant, but he escaped into the night.

Rape aside, it sounds like a scene from an Errol Flynn movie...husband only a few feet away...miscreant...escaping into the night... When was the last time you saw the word 'miscreant' used in a news article?

The couple later lodged a complaint with Kalameshwar police station, who then registered a case of rape against the miscreant, who remains untraced. Local police say that a search party has been sent to nab him.

"...nab him"...that's great! Can you imagine the Times of London using such language? "A 25 year old South Asian miscreant was nabbed today by Interpol as he tried to board a plane to Prague." Perhaps 'miscreant' can replace 'terrorist' in politically correct papers around the world. 'Islamic Miscreant' has a nice ring to it.

The incident took place at around 10 pm on Tuesday, when both Savita and her husband 23-year-old Harish (both names changed) were asleep in their house. Harish was sleeping on a cot, while Savita was on the floor only a few feet away.

As is the correct order of things. Sensible people, those Indians.

Sources say that the accused, identified as one Sanjay Khade (35), somehow broke open the locked door to the house, entered the room they were sleeping in, and lay down beside Savita. She apparently assumed that it was her husband, and let him continue his advances.

Soon after the imposter had finished his act the lady, felt that the person beside her was of a stockier build than her husband, and started shouting. Hearing her scream, Harish woke up and chased Khade, who was a resident of the same village. The accused fled into the night, and the couple lodged a complaint against him on Wednesday. Further investigation into the matter is under way, it is reported.

"Soon after the imposter had finished his act..." - where do these journalists learn their use of English? At the Oscar Wilde school of writing?

It could happen to anyone, I guess?

(Nothing Follows)