Feb 10

A lot of people making public comments about Paul Gascoigne. A lot of people publicly helping Gascoigne.

Very little water cooler reaction to the sheer scale of death from Labour’s chase for future money for financiers from its NHS’ ‘reforms’. Indeed the Baby Boomers are content to hold debt over their own children. They are happy to deny them union rights. To make their education a form of indentured servitude. To force them into more and more subsidised jobs that do not increase the Gross Domestic Product.

The point being people’s seeming inability to rationalise the problems of individuals compared to the seeming mere statistics of real death and tragedy.

On Gascoigne do people and especially his friends so prominently seen to help him this week think this attention has ever done any good? Is the intention of people much like with the wasted emotion of guilt to use their caring to suggest they are somehow good people? Good people who keep electing Govts who callously condemn thousands to deaths? Govts working in the interests of a smaller and smaller number of people? Good people who demand no change as they and their Children’s pensions and wealth are pissed away.

Jimmy Greaves today makes the point Gascoigne does not have a reason to stay sober. He has little in his life. Thousands of people with reasons to live will die because of our indifference. Our care or not care will not change Gascoigne’s fate.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , ,

Apr 29

If there was a conspiracy by Baby Boomers to use the last of the planet’s resources and leave the rest of us, their children, deep in debt they probably would not have done a better job. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , ,

Apr 21

Jeremy Vine and the so called journalists on Panorama showed why people are skeptical of people who try to bring up the problems of immigration. Their premise was that Britain was full up especially the South East.

This was based on factually: lots of net immigration:  we had the smallest houses and highest prices in Europe (Plus Ca Change?): Roads were slow moving. These ideas were unqualified, un-contexted nor was the historical significance of them tested. A sort of anti intellectual argument based on popular ‘common’ sense.

This was supported by key evidence from ‘experts’

  1. A mother in Barking whose kids lived in a damp slum and who felt immigrants got the housing. Oh and I loved the medically questionable view that all 4 had asthma because of the dampness!
  2. A man who had been commuting from King’s Langley in the slowest manner imaginable for 10 years (no I have no idea why that was significant either bar showing the Tube is rubbish).
  3. A teacher from Manchester who had more students than expected and did not like it.

Bang conclusion the premise they started with – we’re full up and it is getting worse.

Actually the only facts on offer were that net immigration was falling. That employers were filling vacancies with low paid foreign workers who were somehow fitting themselves seamlessly into the Labour market and finding housing in London’s commercial sector without whining about over crowding. That some economically inactive mothers would rather stay in a hovel where they were born than move to better housing in less pressured parts of the country.

I finally  got why Immigration Minister Phil Woolas comes across so sour and angry it’s because he has to listen and answer doom laden questions from mealy mouthed journalist tossers with no mind to reason or accept the probability that trends are temporary. In the 80s these runts moaned about the brain drain now in reverse they refuse to see benefits and demographic needs or even to consider what an aging society with the baby boomer bubble of oldies should do.

There probably are real questions about immigration but Panorama raised none and played to the bigoted moron brigade. Not surprising I guess with Vine and the rest of the lightweights concerned.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , ,