Britain is teetering on the brink of economic collapse still (despite what the latest propaganda tells you), we've given up on the idea of being able to defend our nation, our international interests and our sovereignty and we're at the start of what could turn out to be a very long and very cold winter with the promise of massive price hikes in power costs to give us something to think about as we try to keep our homes warm ..... so what does Cameron think we need?
A happiness index!
Meanwhile, the opposition under the leadership of an unthinking left wing clone, have decided that what they need to do is connect with the "hopes and dreams" of the British people. Well, my hope is that Red Ed and the rest of the socialist carbuncles that infest Britain disappear from public life for good and my dream is that Britain is restored once more to a socially conservative, independent and economically stable nation once more. Good luck with that one Ed!
This is the trouble with left wing politics - yes, David Cameron's Tories are a party of the left - they can't deal with real life so they focus on feelings and emotions. It's what left wing politics is all about. Very creepy.
How we feel or what we aspire to is absolutely none of the government's damn business. The first concern of government is whether the nation can defend itself and whether our economy is able to sustain itself - neither of which is true at this moment in time. Worse still, there is no suggestion that there is any hint of a plan to ensure this is true at any time in the foreseeable future!
I for one have had enough of these touchy feely politicians and their creepy ideas. They can take their happiness index and their "hopes and dreams" and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Spot the difference
I'm not going to make any comments on the items exposed by Wikileaks themselves, but I would like to take a moment to compare and contrast the way the media report them in comparison to the way they reported the so-called "Climategate" emails - because the difference in the way they are reported and treated are stark.
When the story about the Hadley data broke there was very little comment from the mainstream media about the content of the data - instead they focused on how the data was "hacked" or "stolen". Any analysis of the actual content was left to the various "sceptic" blogs such as Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit.
The mainstream media - and particularly the alarmist supporters at the BBC, Guardian and Independent - concentrated instead on who obtained the information, how and why. Later, rather than follow up on the considerable evidence discovered by the aforementioned blogs, these media outlets merely reported on the inquiries into the leaks.
With the Wikileaks revelations there is no such concern being shown by the BBC, Guardian or Independent who are happy to report on the content without bothering to worry about how the information was obtained, by whom and, more importantly, why.
Of course, I expect nothing less from the likes of the Guardian and Independent. These organisations make no attempt to be impartial or balanced, but the BBC is supposed to be - which begs the question ..... why do they treat one set of leaks different from another?
Could it be that it suits their agenda to do so?
Makes you wonder.
When the story about the Hadley data broke there was very little comment from the mainstream media about the content of the data - instead they focused on how the data was "hacked" or "stolen". Any analysis of the actual content was left to the various "sceptic" blogs such as Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit.
The mainstream media - and particularly the alarmist supporters at the BBC, Guardian and Independent - concentrated instead on who obtained the information, how and why. Later, rather than follow up on the considerable evidence discovered by the aforementioned blogs, these media outlets merely reported on the inquiries into the leaks.
With the Wikileaks revelations there is no such concern being shown by the BBC, Guardian or Independent who are happy to report on the content without bothering to worry about how the information was obtained, by whom and, more importantly, why.
Of course, I expect nothing less from the likes of the Guardian and Independent. These organisations make no attempt to be impartial or balanced, but the BBC is supposed to be - which begs the question ..... why do they treat one set of leaks different from another?
Could it be that it suits their agenda to do so?
Makes you wonder.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Just what needs rescuing here?
The Irish government are still trying to resist the pressure from the EU to accept an economic "bailout". The Irish say that they don't need it and haven't asked for it, but the EU says they do and if piling on intense pressure to force the Irish to accept.
It's not the first time in recent years that the Irish government have come under intense pressure from the EU. After the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty through a referendum, the EU forced the Irish government into holding a second referendum with barely concealed threats that a failure to gain acceptance for the Lisbon Treaty would hold dire consequences. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Now they are being pushed into accepting loans they don't want. Worse still, they are being forced to do this not to rescue the Irish economy - no, this has nothing to do with Ireland except superficially.
This is about rescuing the euro. Unless Ireland accepts this bailout there is a very strong possibility - no, strong likelihood that Ireland will leave the euro. And once Ireland leaves it is likely that others - notably Greece, Portugal and Spain - will follow. The leaders of the EU know this and this is why they are trying to force Ireland to accept the bailout.
Of course, they can do this because it isn't their money they are throwing around left, right and centre - it's our money. It's very easy to chuck other peoples money down the drain - especially when those people have no say and no way of holding those doing the chucking to account.
If Ireland accepts this loan they will be crushed entirely as an independent nation. Their economy will be controlled almost entirely by faceless and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris and Berlin. At the very least they will be forced to increase their corporation tax - the mechanism by which they attract the investment which enabled the Celtic Tiger to be born.
The alternative for the Irish government would be to pull out of the euro - but then they'd have to go through the pains of recreating their own currency - not an inexpensive business at the best of times, but even tougher when your banking system is on the verge of collapse.
However, there is another option - accept the pound as their currency. In comparison to starting their own currency this would be relatively straightforward to do and their would be benefits for both nations.
Of course, it won't happen. For starters, our government would not do anything that might upset their EU masters and secondly there might be just too much baggage between Ireland and Britain for the Irish people to accept such an arrangement.
So, Ireland will concede to the dictations of the EU - and in that lies a certain irony. After less than 100 years of independence, Ireland will have become a dependency and more subservient to the EU rule than it ever was to British rule.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's not the first time in recent years that the Irish government have come under intense pressure from the EU. After the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty through a referendum, the EU forced the Irish government into holding a second referendum with barely concealed threats that a failure to gain acceptance for the Lisbon Treaty would hold dire consequences. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Now they are being pushed into accepting loans they don't want. Worse still, they are being forced to do this not to rescue the Irish economy - no, this has nothing to do with Ireland except superficially.
This is about rescuing the euro. Unless Ireland accepts this bailout there is a very strong possibility - no, strong likelihood that Ireland will leave the euro. And once Ireland leaves it is likely that others - notably Greece, Portugal and Spain - will follow. The leaders of the EU know this and this is why they are trying to force Ireland to accept the bailout.
Of course, they can do this because it isn't their money they are throwing around left, right and centre - it's our money. It's very easy to chuck other peoples money down the drain - especially when those people have no say and no way of holding those doing the chucking to account.
If Ireland accepts this loan they will be crushed entirely as an independent nation. Their economy will be controlled almost entirely by faceless and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris and Berlin. At the very least they will be forced to increase their corporation tax - the mechanism by which they attract the investment which enabled the Celtic Tiger to be born.
The alternative for the Irish government would be to pull out of the euro - but then they'd have to go through the pains of recreating their own currency - not an inexpensive business at the best of times, but even tougher when your banking system is on the verge of collapse.
However, there is another option - accept the pound as their currency. In comparison to starting their own currency this would be relatively straightforward to do and their would be benefits for both nations.
Of course, it won't happen. For starters, our government would not do anything that might upset their EU masters and secondly there might be just too much baggage between Ireland and Britain for the Irish people to accept such an arrangement.
So, Ireland will concede to the dictations of the EU - and in that lies a certain irony. After less than 100 years of independence, Ireland will have become a dependency and more subservient to the EU rule than it ever was to British rule.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
All smiles
The announcement that Prince William is to marry his long term girlfriend, Kate Middleton, certainly seemed to put a smile on a lot of peoples faces yesterday. There is no doubt that the news brought a buzz of excitement and lifted the morale in my office yesterday - which is no mean feat given the tough economic circumstances and the number of recently vacated desks - but there was one person in particular whose grin was as wide as the Cheshire cat's - David Cameron.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that Cameron is, like me, an unapologetic monarchist, but the cynic in me can't help wondering if the real reason Cameron was grinning like a demented lunatic is the fact that in one brief moment Clarence House had managed to lift the doom and gloom that was settling over the increasingly divided and derided coalition which he leads.
Governments love royal weddings. In terms of poll ratings it is the quickest and easiest way to improve your standing and is second in effectiveness only to the successful conclusion of a short, successful war.
The bad news for Cameron is that the wedding will take place within a year - which means that whatever benefits his doomed government feels now will be long gone by the time the next election is due - though I still doubt that they will survive even that long.
However, for the time being let us celebrate the engagement of the lovely couple and I wish them both long, happy and successful lives together.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that Cameron is, like me, an unapologetic monarchist, but the cynic in me can't help wondering if the real reason Cameron was grinning like a demented lunatic is the fact that in one brief moment Clarence House had managed to lift the doom and gloom that was settling over the increasingly divided and derided coalition which he leads.
Governments love royal weddings. In terms of poll ratings it is the quickest and easiest way to improve your standing and is second in effectiveness only to the successful conclusion of a short, successful war.
The bad news for Cameron is that the wedding will take place within a year - which means that whatever benefits his doomed government feels now will be long gone by the time the next election is due - though I still doubt that they will survive even that long.
However, for the time being let us celebrate the engagement of the lovely couple and I wish them both long, happy and successful lives together.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Irish stewed
I can't help feeling a little sorry for Ireland at the moment. Their economy is in dire straits and, although they can't really blame anyone but themselves for the situation, they don't have luxury of being able to prop it up the way the government here is doing.
Currently, the only things preventing Britain being in the same boat are the facts that we still retain our own currency and therefore have control over monetary and fiscal policy. Keeping the pound - which most of our political leaders wanted to dump, but were only dissuaded from doing so by the belief that it was one step too far for the British public at the time (and probably for good now) - has enabled us to keep the wolves from the door a little bit longer.
The other thing propping up our economy is the property market. Not the selling and buying of homes - no, the crucial thing is the value of property. You see, as long as the government can keep the value of property artificially high they can convince people to spend money - and that is what our economy relies on.
As long as the value of our homes remain considerably higher than the prices we paid for them then people will consider that a cushion for their spending. As most people of my generation bought their homes when they were relatively cheap it means they often have one or two hundred thousands of pounds of equity and this "cushion" is what enable people to continue to spend.
It's also one of the reasons why the government - this one as much as any of the previous governments - is so keen on letting immigrants flood into the country - it keeps the competition for housing fierce and the cost of homes artificially high. Of course, this is also short term and temporary. As soon as the current generation fades away the next generation are going to be left with a huge debt burden and unable to buy the homes their parents did - but my generation - which includes the politicians who run this country - is the most selfish generation this country has ever seen.
Ireland can't do this. Although they have also allowed immigrants to flood into their country as well, the trouble is that their population was tiny in comparison to Britain's - so the housing boom it created melted away as soon as the economy hit the skids. They just aren't overcrowded enough like good ole Blighty.
So with their monetary and fiscal policy dictated by some faceless bureaucrats a thousand miles away and their population too small to support the high property values ours does, the Irish are well and truly up the creek without a paddle.
As the Irish government try desperately to avoid having to accept an EU bailout there is one thing they could do that might avert this - junk the euro. But the EU don't want them to do that as they fear that as soon as one member state drops this fake, flawed currency then others will do the same - but ultimately this is what they will have to do. The longer they delay it the more it will cost them in the long term.
And it should serve as a cautionary tale to all those proponents of the euro. Take the opportunity to write to your MP - especially if they were one of the euro supporters - and remind them of this fact.
Currently, the only things preventing Britain being in the same boat are the facts that we still retain our own currency and therefore have control over monetary and fiscal policy. Keeping the pound - which most of our political leaders wanted to dump, but were only dissuaded from doing so by the belief that it was one step too far for the British public at the time (and probably for good now) - has enabled us to keep the wolves from the door a little bit longer.
The other thing propping up our economy is the property market. Not the selling and buying of homes - no, the crucial thing is the value of property. You see, as long as the government can keep the value of property artificially high they can convince people to spend money - and that is what our economy relies on.
As long as the value of our homes remain considerably higher than the prices we paid for them then people will consider that a cushion for their spending. As most people of my generation bought their homes when they were relatively cheap it means they often have one or two hundred thousands of pounds of equity and this "cushion" is what enable people to continue to spend.
It's also one of the reasons why the government - this one as much as any of the previous governments - is so keen on letting immigrants flood into the country - it keeps the competition for housing fierce and the cost of homes artificially high. Of course, this is also short term and temporary. As soon as the current generation fades away the next generation are going to be left with a huge debt burden and unable to buy the homes their parents did - but my generation - which includes the politicians who run this country - is the most selfish generation this country has ever seen.
Ireland can't do this. Although they have also allowed immigrants to flood into their country as well, the trouble is that their population was tiny in comparison to Britain's - so the housing boom it created melted away as soon as the economy hit the skids. They just aren't overcrowded enough like good ole Blighty.
So with their monetary and fiscal policy dictated by some faceless bureaucrats a thousand miles away and their population too small to support the high property values ours does, the Irish are well and truly up the creek without a paddle.
As the Irish government try desperately to avoid having to accept an EU bailout there is one thing they could do that might avert this - junk the euro. But the EU don't want them to do that as they fear that as soon as one member state drops this fake, flawed currency then others will do the same - but ultimately this is what they will have to do. The longer they delay it the more it will cost them in the long term.
And it should serve as a cautionary tale to all those proponents of the euro. Take the opportunity to write to your MP - especially if they were one of the euro supporters - and remind them of this fact.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Student backlash
I've long been a supporter of students and have frequently voiced not just my opposition to tuition fees, but the very idea of student loans in the first place. However, following the violence and disruption caused yesterday during their protest march I can no longer support them.
As far as I'm concerned they have forfeited any moral high ground they may have occupied and from now on they deserve whatever rubbish the government wants to heap on them. I don't buy the assertion that it was a small minority either - the number actually involved in the violence may have been small in number, but it was apparent that the majority were at best ambivalent and at worst encouraging towards the violence.
As for the police and the Met's Paul Stephenson admitting that he wasn't expecting violence - he must have been the only person in London who wasn't which suggests that maybe he isn't the man to lead the Metropolitan Police. I certainly wouldn't want a man who was unable to see the blindingly obvious in charge of anything as important as the security of a city and its people.
I would hope that all those identified as taking any sort of part in the violence and invasion of private property will now be kicked out of their university and receive a life ban from attending any state run education establishment - this is, after all, a similar punishment to that a rioting football fan caught doing the same sort of thing would receive. That is what should happen - but I doubt that it will.
As far as I'm concerned they have forfeited any moral high ground they may have occupied and from now on they deserve whatever rubbish the government wants to heap on them. I don't buy the assertion that it was a small minority either - the number actually involved in the violence may have been small in number, but it was apparent that the majority were at best ambivalent and at worst encouraging towards the violence.
As for the police and the Met's Paul Stephenson admitting that he wasn't expecting violence - he must have been the only person in London who wasn't which suggests that maybe he isn't the man to lead the Metropolitan Police. I certainly wouldn't want a man who was unable to see the blindingly obvious in charge of anything as important as the security of a city and its people.
I would hope that all those identified as taking any sort of part in the violence and invasion of private property will now be kicked out of their university and receive a life ban from attending any state run education establishment - this is, after all, a similar punishment to that a rioting football fan caught doing the same sort of thing would receive. That is what should happen - but I doubt that it will.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Who are ya?
As far as pompous acts go, David Cameron attempting to lecture the Chinese on how they should manage their country must rank pretty high in the all time top ten. Coming from the "leader" of a nation who wasn't democratically elected by the people, but was appointed by a small cabal of politicians, I should think it must rank pretty high on the all time hypocritical list too.
However, although Cameron, like the leader of China, has not won an election to claim the position of leader, the similarities end there. While China's economy forges ahead, Britain's limps along. While China's influence on the world stage accelerates, Britain's is stuck in reverse gear and while China's military continues to expand - entirely paid for by the USA - Britain can no longer afford to defend itself as we spend more covering the interest on our enormous debt to China than we do on the armed forces.
It's actually quite hard to think of a suitable analogy for this ludicrous situation. At first, I thought it must be like an elephant being shouted at by an ant - but that isn't really accurate, because the ant - though tiny - isn't dependent on the elephant. No - it's more like a dung beetle complaining to an elephant about the way it tramples the undergrowth while depositing a pile of crap on which the dung beetle depends.
Will China pay any heed to Cameron? Will the elephant change it's way of life because of the complaints of a dung beetle? No - China is on course to become the world's largest economy, the world's largest military and the most influential nation on the planet. Britain is on course to become a debt riddled dependency.
I think Cameron should get back to shovelling dung at home.
However, although Cameron, like the leader of China, has not won an election to claim the position of leader, the similarities end there. While China's economy forges ahead, Britain's limps along. While China's influence on the world stage accelerates, Britain's is stuck in reverse gear and while China's military continues to expand - entirely paid for by the USA - Britain can no longer afford to defend itself as we spend more covering the interest on our enormous debt to China than we do on the armed forces.
It's actually quite hard to think of a suitable analogy for this ludicrous situation. At first, I thought it must be like an elephant being shouted at by an ant - but that isn't really accurate, because the ant - though tiny - isn't dependent on the elephant. No - it's more like a dung beetle complaining to an elephant about the way it tramples the undergrowth while depositing a pile of crap on which the dung beetle depends.
Will China pay any heed to Cameron? Will the elephant change it's way of life because of the complaints of a dung beetle? No - China is on course to become the world's largest economy, the world's largest military and the most influential nation on the planet. Britain is on course to become a debt riddled dependency.
I think Cameron should get back to shovelling dung at home.
Friday, November 05, 2010
One strike and you're in
With the BBC affected today, the London tube network being in an almost perpetual state of disruption and the London fire brigade choosing their busiest day of the year to walk out, the issue of strikes is high on the agenda and David Davis has weighed in with his two penneth worth over on the Daily Mail.
Davis seems to favour the idea of banning certain "key workers" from the right to strike on one hand while saying he supports the "right to strike" on the other - which strikes me as slightly contradictory. For a start, it depends on how you classify a "key worker". No offence Londoners, but tube train drivers are not key to the vast majority of British people - they are no more "key" than, say, the bus driver in a remote rural village.
Davis also wants "pendulum arbitration" - a system whereby the arbitrator, rather than splitting the difference between demands of employer and unions, picks the demand he considers most reasonable. Not a bad idea in principle - at least it would prevent either side from making outrageous demands - but it remains rather arbitrary as arbitration goes.
If the government do want to do something about disruptive strikes such as these one or two day strikes then there is one simple piece of legislation they need. One that says once a strike begins then any subsequent return to work by the striking party is an implied acceptance of the terms and conditions on offer and they may not strike again on the same issue.
That would put an end to these deliberately disruptive one/two day strikes spread over weeks that cause maximum disruption and inconvenience to the public with the least amount of inconvenience to the strikers and employers.
Davis seems to favour the idea of banning certain "key workers" from the right to strike on one hand while saying he supports the "right to strike" on the other - which strikes me as slightly contradictory. For a start, it depends on how you classify a "key worker". No offence Londoners, but tube train drivers are not key to the vast majority of British people - they are no more "key" than, say, the bus driver in a remote rural village.
Davis also wants "pendulum arbitration" - a system whereby the arbitrator, rather than splitting the difference between demands of employer and unions, picks the demand he considers most reasonable. Not a bad idea in principle - at least it would prevent either side from making outrageous demands - but it remains rather arbitrary as arbitration goes.
If the government do want to do something about disruptive strikes such as these one or two day strikes then there is one simple piece of legislation they need. One that says once a strike begins then any subsequent return to work by the striking party is an implied acceptance of the terms and conditions on offer and they may not strike again on the same issue.
That would put an end to these deliberately disruptive one/two day strikes spread over weeks that cause maximum disruption and inconvenience to the public with the least amount of inconvenience to the strikers and employers.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Power and privilege
On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be a link between the terrorist bomb discovered on a cargo plane at East Midlands Airport and the European Court telling our government that they have to allow prisoners the vote, but there is.
The fact that a small group of unelected people can dictate the law which our duly elected government is allowed to enact rides roughshod over the principles of democracy. As I've tried to point out many times on this blog, democracy can only exist with the presence of two things - a people (demos) who have a shared interest and common heritage and the consent of that demos. Without either or both of those things you do not have a democracy. The "right" to vote on its own is not democracy - if it were then the old Soviet Union would have been the ultimate democracy and it clearly wasn't.
What all that fundamentally means is that the people of a nation (the demos - as only a nation can have the things necessary for a demos to exist) have to have the right to determine what laws they live by and who enacts those laws. In other words, they must have the power to decide the rules by which we live our lives - and, therefore, the punishment for those who transgress those rules. Probably the most obvious punishment is the one that says anyone who breaks the rules loses the privilege to decide what those rules are to be and how transgressors are punished.
Note that word - privilege. Yes, voting is a privilege, not a right. A right is something that exists without conditions - but a privilege is something you earn. In Britain it is ridiculously easy to earn the privilege to vote - all you have to do is stay alive until you are 18 years old. As with all privileges, the easier it is to obtain, the less valued it is - which is one of the reasons why more and more people don't bother to vote.
But in one stroke of a pen, a group of people with no connection to our nation, our people and our culture have decided that our people do not even have the power to decide who has this privilege and our government - the people we elect to decide these matters - has no choice but to bow down to them. This reveals the reality of where real government power lies - it does not lie with the people we elect (at any level of government) - but in the hands of foreign and unelected bureaucrats. Britain is no longer a democracy, it is part of the new Soviet Union - a place where everyone has the "right" to vote, but very few people are allowed to decide what we vote for.
What has all this got to do with a terrorist bomb plot? Simple - power. You see,government needs power, but a government which has lost most of its power (or in our case, voluntarily given it up) will look for new ways to exercise power wherever they can. Having lost (or given up) the ability to decide on the major things, their only choice is to exercise power in more and more intrusive ways.
Of course the bomb wasn't intended to explode in mid air - what would be the point? Islamic terrorist plots are deliberately designed for high exposure and impact. If the plane had gone down over the Atlantic ocean the chances are no one would ever know it was caused by a bomb. Few people would have died and it would have been assumed to be just another tragic air accident. The only point in blowing the plane up in the air would be if they could guarantee that it was over a major city when it happened - almost impossible to achieve.
In fact, it's quite likely that the bomb wasn't expected to explode at all - the whole point was to cause maximum disruption to the airline industry and in that regard it has succeeded (as most Islamic bomb plots do). If the bomb had reached its intended target and killed some Jews then all well and good as far as the plotters were concerned - but it wouldn't have taken long to work out how the bombs were delivered and still cause maximum disruption to western interests - the whole point of the plot.
But our government - assisted by their agencies (which are equally interested in grabbing or retaining power) have decided to clamp down in ways that will do nothing to make us safer, but does give them an excuse to exercise their power over us. And that is ultimately what they want.
The fact that a small group of unelected people can dictate the law which our duly elected government is allowed to enact rides roughshod over the principles of democracy. As I've tried to point out many times on this blog, democracy can only exist with the presence of two things - a people (demos) who have a shared interest and common heritage and the consent of that demos. Without either or both of those things you do not have a democracy. The "right" to vote on its own is not democracy - if it were then the old Soviet Union would have been the ultimate democracy and it clearly wasn't.
What all that fundamentally means is that the people of a nation (the demos - as only a nation can have the things necessary for a demos to exist) have to have the right to determine what laws they live by and who enacts those laws. In other words, they must have the power to decide the rules by which we live our lives - and, therefore, the punishment for those who transgress those rules. Probably the most obvious punishment is the one that says anyone who breaks the rules loses the privilege to decide what those rules are to be and how transgressors are punished.
Note that word - privilege. Yes, voting is a privilege, not a right. A right is something that exists without conditions - but a privilege is something you earn. In Britain it is ridiculously easy to earn the privilege to vote - all you have to do is stay alive until you are 18 years old. As with all privileges, the easier it is to obtain, the less valued it is - which is one of the reasons why more and more people don't bother to vote.
But in one stroke of a pen, a group of people with no connection to our nation, our people and our culture have decided that our people do not even have the power to decide who has this privilege and our government - the people we elect to decide these matters - has no choice but to bow down to them. This reveals the reality of where real government power lies - it does not lie with the people we elect (at any level of government) - but in the hands of foreign and unelected bureaucrats. Britain is no longer a democracy, it is part of the new Soviet Union - a place where everyone has the "right" to vote, but very few people are allowed to decide what we vote for.
What has all this got to do with a terrorist bomb plot? Simple - power. You see,government needs power, but a government which has lost most of its power (or in our case, voluntarily given it up) will look for new ways to exercise power wherever they can. Having lost (or given up) the ability to decide on the major things, their only choice is to exercise power in more and more intrusive ways.
Of course the bomb wasn't intended to explode in mid air - what would be the point? Islamic terrorist plots are deliberately designed for high exposure and impact. If the plane had gone down over the Atlantic ocean the chances are no one would ever know it was caused by a bomb. Few people would have died and it would have been assumed to be just another tragic air accident. The only point in blowing the plane up in the air would be if they could guarantee that it was over a major city when it happened - almost impossible to achieve.
In fact, it's quite likely that the bomb wasn't expected to explode at all - the whole point was to cause maximum disruption to the airline industry and in that regard it has succeeded (as most Islamic bomb plots do). If the bomb had reached its intended target and killed some Jews then all well and good as far as the plotters were concerned - but it wouldn't have taken long to work out how the bombs were delivered and still cause maximum disruption to western interests - the whole point of the plot.
But our government - assisted by their agencies (which are equally interested in grabbing or retaining power) have decided to clamp down in ways that will do nothing to make us safer, but does give them an excuse to exercise their power over us. And that is ultimately what they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)