I noticed this earlier at Dick Puddlecote's and was going to have a go at it, but Mummylonglegs beat me to it.
She's done it so well there's nothing left to say.
If it wasn't for the inconvenience of real life, I wouldn't miss so many of these.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
New Liberty Network forum
I'm in too many forums. I rarely look in on Facebook, even. Partly because the end of the tax year is approaching and I'm now preparing a load of delayed invoices. The companies like these off their books in this tax year, but I don't want them banked until next tax year. So I'll have a load going out at the end of this month.
A bad time, then, to find a new one! So I'll just plonk a link here and look back in on it later, when I have a bit of time.
A bad time, then, to find a new one! So I'll just plonk a link here and look back in on it later, when I have a bit of time.
Paved with good intentions.
A local child armed with fruit. It does not occur to them to eat it.(Picture avariciously grasped here - be warned, I've wasted hours on that site tonight!)
People look out for themselves, first of all. We're told it's a bad thing and that we should put others first but few people can really do that. Very, very few. It's not evil. It's normal. If you're on a plane and you pay attention to the stewardess doing the Dance of the Orange Vest before takeoff (I confess, it depends what she looks like - just call me Mr. Superficial) you will note the part about the oxygen masks.
In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will drop down from the ceiling.
(Oh good, we're about to die and they've laid on a costume party)
Pull a mask towards you to start the flow of oxygen.
(She does not mention jamming your elbow into the neck of the pinstriped monkey beside you who's also trying to get a mask, but it's important. Those masks might not all be in working order)
Be sure to secure your own mask before helping others.
Is anyone going to be stupid enough to do otherwise? Yes. Some are. And that is why there are so few truly altruistic people in the world - they die out helping others. Natural selection kills them off. If you want to be of some help to others, be aware that you will be no help at all as a corpse in the way. The first thing to do is ensure your own survival, and then you can be really useful in helping others survive. Dead, you're just a lump of cold flesh blocking the exit. And you will soon start to stink way beyond anything pot-pourri can cover up. And if the plane crashes in some remote region, you will be on the menu. Before the airline food. I mean, we're not going to eat that stuff until we are desperate.
Those who want you to 'put others first' are always - always - asking for something. It's usually money or something sellable. They aren't really altruistic. They are not putting their lives on the line, just collecting money. They are not putting others first, even when they think they are. They are doing it for the money or the feel-good factor.
I'm not knocking that. Whatever the motivation, people who provide a genuine service to anyone who needs it are doing a good thing. Why shouldn't they take that feel-good factor home afterwards? They've earned it. If they are helping others full time, why shouldn't they be paid for it? Their lives are spent helping others and too damn right they should get something back.
But that's not altruism.
Our present government of all the tyrants have a big thing for targets. To be fair, which is generous because they are never fair to me, this is not a purely Labour problem. Tories play the target game too. Constantly Furious lays out how it works and why they use it.
The police are set targets of how many arrests they must make. Not convictions, not sensible arrests, not actual real crimes detected and dealt with, just arrests. Everyone around here knows it and everyone is exceptionally well behaved in the last week of every month because we all know they are looking for an arrest to tick the boxes.
What this means is that the police are no longer the ones who prevent crime. They depend on crime. There must be crime, or the police cannot make their targets. They cannot prevent crime. The target system will not allow it. If an area is ever totally crime-free, the police will not make their targets and will be deemed to have failed, even though they will have spectacularly succeeded. If there is enough crime for each officer to make a set number of arrests each and every month, they will be hailed as a success even though the constant or rising crime rate is actually a failure.
The police, originally intended to stop crime, are now dependent on its existence for their continued employment.
So it is with the charities, pressure groups, trusts, quangos and so on. Many start off with good intentions. There are the ASH and the Shenkerite types whose intentions were control-freakery from the outset, but most really did start out with good intentions.
They soon become businesses. They soon have chief executives and permanent staff, and those permanent staff soon realise that if they ever actually solve the problems they are there to solve, they will all be out of a job. Just like the police, their continued employment depends on the continued existence of the problem.
ASH do not want us all to stop smoking. They want to keep themselves employed. That is why they accept money from the producers of gum and patches that have a dismal record of success, lower even than 'cold turkey' as a stop-smoking measure. That is why they now want to promote the suicide pill as a stop-smoking measure. Well, it will work. You can't smoke when you're dead although I plan to have my body stuffed with tobacco and then get cremated. Then I want my ashes thrown into the faces of the people on my list so I can get right up their noses, one last time.
It is why ASH are so against Electrofag. With development, it could be a very good alternative to smoking. Even smokers get pissed off with ash dropping everywhere and having to empty ashtrays and all the general tidying-up-afterwards so if Electrofag could be made indistinguishable from real smoking, we'd go for it. ASH would be destroyed at a stroke. So they push the patches and the gum and the suicide pills and take money from those who make those things.
There is nothing altruistic about ASH. They are in it for themselves.
The Shenkerites push for policies that will penalise all drinkers and do nothing at all to stop 'problem drinkers' and they know perfectly well their policies will not work. They are not supposed to work. If they did, the Shenkerites would be out of a job.
Those are extreme examples. Those people started out Righteous and based their entire organisations on telling other people how to live. The people they demonise are only demonic because they have made them so. Smokers and drinkers were not universally despised ten years ago. ASH and the Shenkerites set up that publically acceptable segregation.
Let's try a group that might not have started out that way.
Stonewall. The gay rights group. It is true that gay people previously have - and still do - have to deal with bigotry. I am not talking about 'people who don't like gays' here. That's personal opinion and is harmless. I'm talking about people who actually go out and seek out gay people and do real, physical harm to them for no other reason than that they are gay. Seriously nasty people.
So, it was not at all unreasonable to form a group saying 'Stop hitting us just because we are different'. A group whose aims were to have gay people treated exactly the same as straight people in all aspects of life where the gay/straight issue is not an issue at all. A laudable aim and one I, as a straight man, can fully support.
I recall a conversation with a friend of mine about students. It is not obviously related to the gay issue but it will be. One of his students complained to him about another of his students who had his girlfriend over to stay, often. They had noisy sex and drank too much. My friend asked what I would do in that situation.
My response: 'Does it affect his work at all?'
His reaction; 'That's what I thought.'
If you have a student or employee who is performing their job perfectly well, then what they do outside work is of no interest or relevance. Whether they sleep with men or women or sheep or frogs or plastic inflatable otters or Daleks made out of chewing gum is of no consequence. As long as they turn up, do the job they are supposed to do, that is all an employer should care about.
But let's look at it from the employer's point of view. Nowadays, it is not as simple as an employer going 'Meh. I dinnae like th' poofters'. That employer has to have just so many cripples on his books, so many gays, so many ethnics, so many women, so many circus midgets, so many men from Atlantis, so many Oompaloompas, so many of each and every pressure group's favorite oppressed group. The only ones he can legitimately refuse a job are single white heterosexual males and smokers.
Is that a good thing? On the surface it may seem so, but what if you are an employer who has interviewed a single white straight male smoker who is absolutely perfect for the job, but have to turn them down because there's a useless orange Atlantean gay midget with one arm on the list and you have to tick those boxes?
What if you're the one rejected in favour of the box-ticking candidate?
All that is achieved by pressure groups is to single out their favoured minorities for attack. When Stonewall insist that Catholic adoption agencies must place children with gay couples, they fuel resentment from the agencies and from all Catholics everywhere. There are other adoption agencies. If Stonewall simply said 'go to this one, they are not bound by religion', there would be no problem. They don't. They pressure the government to force the few catholic agencies to comply.
Stonewall, in this case, are not helping to further equality. They are pushing for preferential treatment. No Catholic agency would let me adopt a child because I am non-religious, will definitely teach the child that smoking and drinking are not the deadly sins they are made out to be, would teach the child that contraception is a good thing and would certainly not bring that child up in any faith. The kicker would be the question 'Do you like children' to which my answer would be 'No, they are an annoyance at best and a disgusting food-to-crap converter with no material value at worst'.
So they wouldn't let me adopt. That's their belief and that's how it is, and I'll just have to keep paying for a chimney sweep. The Bible, which I have read, states quite clearly in several places 'No poofters' so it has always surprised me to find gay people joining a religion that states it hates them. If it's any consolation, it hates boozy reprobates too, no matter what their orientation. But that's a different topic.
No agency would let me adopt when they find out that the only use I have for a child is to get into those underfloor places I can't reach and to pass me the whisky when it's more than an arm's length away. This is not true of gay couples. There are many non-religious agencies. So why would Stonewall make such a fuss?
Because their existence depends on it. There are still gay-haters, just are there are still racists and mysoginists and anti-semites and so on and I don't mean those with mere moral or personal objection. I mean the actually violent ones. They will always exist. Stonewall now depends on those gay-haters in exactly the same way that the police depend on crime, ASH depends on smoking and the Shenkerites depend on drunken louts. They all provoke their targets
deliberately.
They push for 'rights' that are actually preferential treatment. ASH push for non-smoker's rights that are actually preferential treatment (before Stonewall decide to get all uppity with me, consider this - you can have a gay club. I cannot have a smoker's club). Disabled groups demand disabled access to silly places - such as locally, where an upstairs disco was shut down because they could not provide wheelchair access. There is another, ground floor, disco, which nobody in a wheelchair visits (duh) but that's not good enough. The disabled group, run by people who aren't, want it all.
They start out wanting to help. I'm sure most of their frontline troops believe they are helping and are getting that deserved feel-good factor from what they are doing. The top brass in every one of these charities is well aware that in order to keep solving the problem, the problem must continue to exist. It must never be solved. It must be perpetuated and exaggerated and pushed in everyone's face until the proof of the problem manifests in an attack.
I remember when anyone gay coming into the pub could expect to be greeted with 'Uh-oh, backs to the wall lads, hur hur' and it wouldn't have been very pleasant for the guy concerned, I'm sure. Probably very boring after the first hundred times. But it was over in a few moments and then anyone mentioning it again that evening would get 'Oh, shut up, we've done that'. Anyone physically attacking the gay man would have been surprised at how many would wade in to stop it. We might take the piss, but he's a mate and nobody gets a free beating at a mate.
Now, children are taught at school that gays are different. People hear all about 'gay rights' and wonder why the gays need extra-special rights that non-gays aren't going to get. Gays are treated as different in a way that makes those pub jokes seem so trivial as to be hardly worth mentioning.
No more jokes in the pub. That's illegal. In fact it's best to stay well away from that gay mate in case he takes offense at something. Nobody dares speak to him now. If he is physically attacked, everyone is scared to get involved. An improvement?
The pressure groups did that. By continually drawing attention to things that most of us didn't care about in the past, and by criminalising any mention of them.
Look how effective the self-perpetuating problem can be. Ten years ago, how did you feel about fat people? They were just fat people, right? Now, you consider them a cost to your taxes and you'll likely agree Something Must Be Done. Ten years ago, how did you feel about drunks? I mean totally incapable and incoherent drunks. Sad people to be ignored and avoided, right? Now they are a drain on your taxes and you hate them.
Those, like smokers, are groups you would have shrugged off as irrelevant to your life ten years ago, but now they are Evil Personified.
These are problems that have been created by special interest groups to keep themselves in funding.
Groups dealing with people who really did have a harder time in the past - ethnics, gays, disabled and so on - find it much easier. They didn't have to create the problem. All they have to do is keep it going.
There is no altruism. Everyone is looking after Number One first and that is not at all unusual. It is nature. Beware of those who say they are 'doing it for you'. They are not. They are doing it for themselves. Their jobs depend on you having a problem and if they fix it, they are out of a job. You are not the subject of an altruistic urge to make life better for you.
You are just their means of survival.
Goodbye maturing garden.
Tired tonight. Gardening weather today, and most of it is dead thanks to global non-warming. Having a garden under snow for three months means that even my ten-year-old plants are dead. Now I have a lot of bare earth and a mound of rotting vegetation on what used to be a lawn but is now a yellow swampy moss-patch. I think my fruit trees made it, at least the roots haven't rotted away, but I'll just have to wait and see if those buds sprout.
If it wasn't for the promises of global warming, I might have gone ahead with my idea to cover the lot with a perspex dome and grow Kiwi fruit, hops, barley and tobacco. Although perspex dome, chimenea, maybe not an ideal combination. Glass dome, local banjo-playing inbred freaky kids, definitely not a good combination. They can throw stones really accurately with six fingers.
Enough gardening talk. Maybe I'll just concrete the lot, paint it brown and drill holes to put plastic flowers into.
Astroturf. I need astroturf.
If it wasn't for the promises of global warming, I might have gone ahead with my idea to cover the lot with a perspex dome and grow Kiwi fruit, hops, barley and tobacco. Although perspex dome, chimenea, maybe not an ideal combination. Glass dome, local banjo-playing inbred freaky kids, definitely not a good combination. They can throw stones really accurately with six fingers.
Enough gardening talk. Maybe I'll just concrete the lot, paint it brown and drill holes to put plastic flowers into.
Astroturf. I need astroturf.
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Equality in intelligence.
The average IQ of the people of this country is 100. That is no coincidence. The IQ rating is designed around the premise that 'average' gets a score of 100, above average gets more and below average gets less. if they had set the average to 'zero', half the population would have a negative IQ which wouldn't be fair. An IQ of 80 is a perfectly functional human. Okay, they won't be likely to write the next great novel or rise to the rank of professor, but they will not need to be looked after. They can run their own lives perfectly well.
The IQ test isn't perfect. I know at least one very intelligent dyslexic who simply cannot do the test. You can't test someone's intelligence through a medium they can't use effectively. You might as well set the test in Klingon and then crow about how low everyone's scores are. It is also possible to ramp up your score by practising the test. So it's not perfect.
It does, however, demonstrate that there are very different levels of intelligence within a population. I know, the socialists like to pretend we are all born equal and that different levels of achievement are the result of all those evil capitalist oppressors, but that's just total rubbish.
You don't even need to be smart to succeed in life. Many who aren't born smart end up rich and successful anyway, through sheer bloody-minded persistence. The dimmest of all succeed by getting into parliament where they are not required to do anything other than dream up lunatic rules and apply them. How can so many idiots get into parliament? By being compliant with the Party line and getting themselves placed in safe seats - not on the basis of ability, but because the party can be sure they'll vote as directed. Oh, and the ability to make a sound like a dodgy lawnmower whenever the other side says something they don't like.
Socialists think that all they need do is make sure everyone has the same stuff and that will make them all the same. If we all have the same amount of money, we will be equal. If everyone has a computer and access to the internet, we will all be equally intelligent.
I know people whose computers have no word processor installed. No software other than what came with it, and what came with their camera. No printer. A webcam, often, but no scanner, no peripherals. It is not for their work - they are builder's labourers, shop assistants, warehousemen. The computer is a toy. It's for watching porn and playing games and that is it. Some use Facebook or another networking programme but none write blogs, research, delve into the deeper recesses of the information out there or indeed get very far beyond the porn sites at all.
If Labour think these people will immediately tune in to LabourList when they are given computers, they are mistaken. They won't even bother with online newspapers unless they have a laptop so they can read them on the bog.
You want proof that having a computer does not make you intelligent? Angry Exile has proof. Hundreds of people failing to log in to Facebook because they are on a site that looks nothing like Facebook and is called something different.
I'm not going to advocate a minimum intelligence test for owning a computer. If someone wants to use a computer solely as a massively expensive version of Wrist Wobbler's Weekly, that's up to them. If they want to spend their lives immersed in some fantasy world until their real life bodies become bloated and grey, they end up looking and sounding like Jabba the Hut and all their friends think they died years ago, that's up to them.
But I don't want to pay for it.
Labour want to hand out free laptops to their support base. If I need a new laptop, I have to pay for it out of whatever is left after the taxman has taken a whack out of my income in order to buy a laptop for someone else. Socialists regard that as 'fair'. If I object, I am being an elitist capitalist selfish racist-Nazi-bigot. In fact, I am an elitist in their eyes for daring to have non-State-approved thoughts.
Yes, I'm smart. I've scored on IQ tests in the 140's at 3 am after drinking most of a bottle of whisky. Sober and properly awake, I've done a lot better. Does that make me look down on lesser mortals? Certainly not.
If there's a leaky pipe in my house, I am smarter than the plumber on the IQ range but I can't fix the pipe. When I had a bit added to the house, it was added by someone who can't touch me in an IQ contest but who can build a wall both sides of where a window is to be placed, and the tops of both sides of the wall will be absolutely and perfectly level. I admit I was in awe when I saw that. If he used a level, I didn't see it.
In my line of work, being smarter than the average voter is an advantage. If I was on a building site, my IQ would be of no use at all. They'll want someone who can lift as many bricks as possible up the scaffolding as quickly as possible, and that's not me.
Many people simply are not born with the potential to be deep thinkers, just as many people are not born with the potential to be Olympic athletes. Once in a generation we get an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking, whose thinking abilities are so far out of range of the rest of us that we can only shake our heads and go 'Phew'. I read Hawking's book (and I defy anyone who reads it not to 'hear' it in his voice) and when he gets to the part where some things don't look the same until they turn completely around twice, I knew I was in twilight zone territory.
I've been told my IQ puts me in the top one or two percent - top of what? It's certainly not the top of athletic ability or building skills. It's nowhere near the top of money-making ability. I know utter dolts who are far richer than me. I mean, look at how much money the 'socialist' Toynbee has, none of which, I note, she has redistributed, and yet calling her a 'plank' would be an insult to the memory of whichever tree it came from.
Pol Pot, Stalin and others sought to equalise intelligence among the proles by killing off all the academics. Those pesky free thinkers have to go. They question things and nobody should be allowed to question socialism. It didn't work. It never will, and it's because one of the central tenets of socialist dogma is very, very wrong.
Intelligence is not connected to success or social class. It's the other way around. Smart people who don't like living on the council estate they were born into will find a way to move out. Idiots born into wealth will squander it and end up destitute. Social class does not determine intelligence. Neither does education. With the intelligence I have, I cannot speak Farsi or Urdu, not one word. I've never had a single lesson. Some people will never understand the basics of the cytochrome chain, no matter how often you tell them, because they are not equipped to grasp it. Intelligence and learning are different things.
So all those kids going through indoctrination in Labour's schools will not end up of equally low intelligence, which is what Labour have tried to achieve. They might have roughly equal knowledge when they leave but some will still be very smart and some will still be very dim and there will be everything in between. The smart ones will note the discrepancies between what they were taught and what they see in the real world and they will question it. Not aloud. They're smart, remember? They will realise very quickly what could happen to them if they reveal their smartness.
All socialist states eventually fail because of this. Equality, in the socialist sense, is impossible because we are all born different. We do not start as pure blank slates at birth. Even where the socialists kill off all the smart ones, new smart ones will be born. The genetics of smartness is unknown and probably extremely complex, and smart people know better than to shout about it in a regime where smart people are punished or even executed.
I am not against people having computers. Whenever I upgrade mine, which isn't often, I'll reformat the hard disk on the old one and set it up for a friend who can't afford one. It's not the latest technology but it's better than what they have now. I don't install word processors or statistical software or PowerPoint or things like that for them. I know they are going to use it for RedTube and eBay and they'll want RealPlayer for downloading the mucky videos. I'll tell them about blogs and other sites but they won't bother with them. I am certainly not against people having computers and using them for things I consider trivial. I have no problem donating old but serviceable machines for free to others. What I am against is being forced to pay for new machines for people I have never met.
Especially since it is not going to work. Computers do not make people intelligent. Nothing does. However smart you are when you're born, that's it. You can choose to make full use of what you have by learning things or you can choose to vegetate in front of the idiot lantern all your life. That does not change how smart you are, it merely changes how successful you will be, and you do not need to be highly intelligent in order to be successful. Find what you are good at, what you enjoy, do that and do it well. That is success.
Having a Lexus and a mansion and a villa in Tuscany is, to me, not success. Those are fripperies, irrelevances, annoying things that you just have to worry about all the time. If I had a million-pound house with million-pound contents, I'd be worried about it every time I went to the shops. If I had a twenty-thousand-pound car, I'd be awake at every noise outside and fret over stone chips. My house is full of stuff I can mostly replace in one trip to Tesco, plus a lot of trivia I wouldn't actually mind someone else clearing out for me and none of it is worth stealing.
That's another difference. For some, that Lexus and mansion are the hallmarks of success. Do I regard them as wrong? No, because just like intelligence, the definition of success is a personal thing. Some people want their own swimming pool. If I had a swimming pool, I'd fill it with soil and plant potatoes in it. Some people want to own a Rolls-Royce. I'd be happier with the shell of a Fiesta with chickens living in it. Some people want to live in a really big house in the countryside. My dream is a one-bedroomed flat over a well-equipped laboratory with a pub next door.
You don't need intelligence to get those things. Look at footballers and pop stars. Some are multi-talented and very smart. David Bowie has a whole business empire now, but... Bono? Vinnie Jones has turned to acting and is very good at it, but... Beckham? All rich, and all at very different places on the scale of intelligence. All very good at what they do but it is not related to how smart they are. Beckham is very good at football but is he likely to be trying for a university position?
This is what socialists fail to see. They insist on forcing equality in all things on a species that is biologically extremely variable. That variability is key to the survival of a species that has no fur, no claws and little in the way of teeth. Make us all identical and we will die out.
We are not equal. We are different. I'm good at something, you're good at something else. Together we make it work. I'll fix your gut infection, you fix my electrical supply. If I try to fix my electrical supply I might kill myself. If you take random drugs you might kill yourself.
Socialism will not see that. We must be clones of the ideal and no more. If someone is good at something, slap them down. Stay in line, prole, and don't try to be better at anything than anyone else. Do not attempt to appear intelligent or you will be re-de-educated.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger than others. Some people are faster than others. Some people want things other people don't want. Some people like things other people don't like. Some people are frightened by things other people find comforting. Some are offended by things other people can shrug off. Some people really enjoy doing something that other people don't like doing at all.
We are different. Socialism will never accept that and it will always fail as a result.
The IQ test isn't perfect. I know at least one very intelligent dyslexic who simply cannot do the test. You can't test someone's intelligence through a medium they can't use effectively. You might as well set the test in Klingon and then crow about how low everyone's scores are. It is also possible to ramp up your score by practising the test. So it's not perfect.
It does, however, demonstrate that there are very different levels of intelligence within a population. I know, the socialists like to pretend we are all born equal and that different levels of achievement are the result of all those evil capitalist oppressors, but that's just total rubbish.
You don't even need to be smart to succeed in life. Many who aren't born smart end up rich and successful anyway, through sheer bloody-minded persistence. The dimmest of all succeed by getting into parliament where they are not required to do anything other than dream up lunatic rules and apply them. How can so many idiots get into parliament? By being compliant with the Party line and getting themselves placed in safe seats - not on the basis of ability, but because the party can be sure they'll vote as directed. Oh, and the ability to make a sound like a dodgy lawnmower whenever the other side says something they don't like.
Socialists think that all they need do is make sure everyone has the same stuff and that will make them all the same. If we all have the same amount of money, we will be equal. If everyone has a computer and access to the internet, we will all be equally intelligent.
I know people whose computers have no word processor installed. No software other than what came with it, and what came with their camera. No printer. A webcam, often, but no scanner, no peripherals. It is not for their work - they are builder's labourers, shop assistants, warehousemen. The computer is a toy. It's for watching porn and playing games and that is it. Some use Facebook or another networking programme but none write blogs, research, delve into the deeper recesses of the information out there or indeed get very far beyond the porn sites at all.
If Labour think these people will immediately tune in to LabourList when they are given computers, they are mistaken. They won't even bother with online newspapers unless they have a laptop so they can read them on the bog.
You want proof that having a computer does not make you intelligent? Angry Exile has proof. Hundreds of people failing to log in to Facebook because they are on a site that looks nothing like Facebook and is called something different.
I'm not going to advocate a minimum intelligence test for owning a computer. If someone wants to use a computer solely as a massively expensive version of Wrist Wobbler's Weekly, that's up to them. If they want to spend their lives immersed in some fantasy world until their real life bodies become bloated and grey, they end up looking and sounding like Jabba the Hut and all their friends think they died years ago, that's up to them.
But I don't want to pay for it.
Labour want to hand out free laptops to their support base. If I need a new laptop, I have to pay for it out of whatever is left after the taxman has taken a whack out of my income in order to buy a laptop for someone else. Socialists regard that as 'fair'. If I object, I am being an elitist capitalist selfish racist-Nazi-bigot. In fact, I am an elitist in their eyes for daring to have non-State-approved thoughts.
Yes, I'm smart. I've scored on IQ tests in the 140's at 3 am after drinking most of a bottle of whisky. Sober and properly awake, I've done a lot better. Does that make me look down on lesser mortals? Certainly not.
If there's a leaky pipe in my house, I am smarter than the plumber on the IQ range but I can't fix the pipe. When I had a bit added to the house, it was added by someone who can't touch me in an IQ contest but who can build a wall both sides of where a window is to be placed, and the tops of both sides of the wall will be absolutely and perfectly level. I admit I was in awe when I saw that. If he used a level, I didn't see it.
In my line of work, being smarter than the average voter is an advantage. If I was on a building site, my IQ would be of no use at all. They'll want someone who can lift as many bricks as possible up the scaffolding as quickly as possible, and that's not me.
Many people simply are not born with the potential to be deep thinkers, just as many people are not born with the potential to be Olympic athletes. Once in a generation we get an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking, whose thinking abilities are so far out of range of the rest of us that we can only shake our heads and go 'Phew'. I read Hawking's book (and I defy anyone who reads it not to 'hear' it in his voice) and when he gets to the part where some things don't look the same until they turn completely around twice, I knew I was in twilight zone territory.
I've been told my IQ puts me in the top one or two percent - top of what? It's certainly not the top of athletic ability or building skills. It's nowhere near the top of money-making ability. I know utter dolts who are far richer than me. I mean, look at how much money the 'socialist' Toynbee has, none of which, I note, she has redistributed, and yet calling her a 'plank' would be an insult to the memory of whichever tree it came from.
Pol Pot, Stalin and others sought to equalise intelligence among the proles by killing off all the academics. Those pesky free thinkers have to go. They question things and nobody should be allowed to question socialism. It didn't work. It never will, and it's because one of the central tenets of socialist dogma is very, very wrong.
Intelligence is not connected to success or social class. It's the other way around. Smart people who don't like living on the council estate they were born into will find a way to move out. Idiots born into wealth will squander it and end up destitute. Social class does not determine intelligence. Neither does education. With the intelligence I have, I cannot speak Farsi or Urdu, not one word. I've never had a single lesson. Some people will never understand the basics of the cytochrome chain, no matter how often you tell them, because they are not equipped to grasp it. Intelligence and learning are different things.
So all those kids going through indoctrination in Labour's schools will not end up of equally low intelligence, which is what Labour have tried to achieve. They might have roughly equal knowledge when they leave but some will still be very smart and some will still be very dim and there will be everything in between. The smart ones will note the discrepancies between what they were taught and what they see in the real world and they will question it. Not aloud. They're smart, remember? They will realise very quickly what could happen to them if they reveal their smartness.
All socialist states eventually fail because of this. Equality, in the socialist sense, is impossible because we are all born different. We do not start as pure blank slates at birth. Even where the socialists kill off all the smart ones, new smart ones will be born. The genetics of smartness is unknown and probably extremely complex, and smart people know better than to shout about it in a regime where smart people are punished or even executed.
I am not against people having computers. Whenever I upgrade mine, which isn't often, I'll reformat the hard disk on the old one and set it up for a friend who can't afford one. It's not the latest technology but it's better than what they have now. I don't install word processors or statistical software or PowerPoint or things like that for them. I know they are going to use it for RedTube and eBay and they'll want RealPlayer for downloading the mucky videos. I'll tell them about blogs and other sites but they won't bother with them. I am certainly not against people having computers and using them for things I consider trivial. I have no problem donating old but serviceable machines for free to others. What I am against is being forced to pay for new machines for people I have never met.
Especially since it is not going to work. Computers do not make people intelligent. Nothing does. However smart you are when you're born, that's it. You can choose to make full use of what you have by learning things or you can choose to vegetate in front of the idiot lantern all your life. That does not change how smart you are, it merely changes how successful you will be, and you do not need to be highly intelligent in order to be successful. Find what you are good at, what you enjoy, do that and do it well. That is success.
Having a Lexus and a mansion and a villa in Tuscany is, to me, not success. Those are fripperies, irrelevances, annoying things that you just have to worry about all the time. If I had a million-pound house with million-pound contents, I'd be worried about it every time I went to the shops. If I had a twenty-thousand-pound car, I'd be awake at every noise outside and fret over stone chips. My house is full of stuff I can mostly replace in one trip to Tesco, plus a lot of trivia I wouldn't actually mind someone else clearing out for me and none of it is worth stealing.
That's another difference. For some, that Lexus and mansion are the hallmarks of success. Do I regard them as wrong? No, because just like intelligence, the definition of success is a personal thing. Some people want their own swimming pool. If I had a swimming pool, I'd fill it with soil and plant potatoes in it. Some people want to own a Rolls-Royce. I'd be happier with the shell of a Fiesta with chickens living in it. Some people want to live in a really big house in the countryside. My dream is a one-bedroomed flat over a well-equipped laboratory with a pub next door.
You don't need intelligence to get those things. Look at footballers and pop stars. Some are multi-talented and very smart. David Bowie has a whole business empire now, but... Bono? Vinnie Jones has turned to acting and is very good at it, but... Beckham? All rich, and all at very different places on the scale of intelligence. All very good at what they do but it is not related to how smart they are. Beckham is very good at football but is he likely to be trying for a university position?
This is what socialists fail to see. They insist on forcing equality in all things on a species that is biologically extremely variable. That variability is key to the survival of a species that has no fur, no claws and little in the way of teeth. Make us all identical and we will die out.
We are not equal. We are different. I'm good at something, you're good at something else. Together we make it work. I'll fix your gut infection, you fix my electrical supply. If I try to fix my electrical supply I might kill myself. If you take random drugs you might kill yourself.
Socialism will not see that. We must be clones of the ideal and no more. If someone is good at something, slap them down. Stay in line, prole, and don't try to be better at anything than anyone else. Do not attempt to appear intelligent or you will be re-de-educated.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger than others. Some people are faster than others. Some people want things other people don't want. Some people like things other people don't like. Some people are frightened by things other people find comforting. Some are offended by things other people can shrug off. Some people really enjoy doing something that other people don't like doing at all.
We are different. Socialism will never accept that and it will always fail as a result.
Righteous mind games, the everyday ones.
The Righteous have few methods and those methods have changed little over the centuries. The reason they don't change is that for most people, they still work as well as they always did. That is also the reason for Righteous extermination of academics etc. as soon as they get control. All they want are the malleable.
What they can't control is that the malleable give birth to the clever, so the smart ones increase and are smart enough to keep quiet until they are numerous enough to slap down the Righteous.
The Righteous are not too smart. If they were, they'd have worked out by now where they go wrong every time. I'm not going to tell them.
I've occasionally posted Righteous methods such as the bogeyman and the creeper and a few more in the past. They don't like it and are attempting to do something about it, which I have calculated for and am dealing with. It's not difficult. I'm not exactly pitting wits against Einstein here. Those are long-game methods, but individual Righteous will play short-game methods for their own amusement, and to reinforce their illusion of actually mattering in the world.
You will see these short games in supermarket and other queues, where the person behind you takes a series of small steps forward. This is to intimidate you into hurrying up. It plays on a primal fear, the slowly approaching predator, and it works very well on anyone who doesn't know about it. The best fun you can have with this is to slow down until they are right at your shoulder when it's time to pay. Then take out your credit card, put it in the reader and then turn and look them straight in the eye. At this point, they are in the position of a shoulder-surfer looking for credit card details and it is hard not to laugh out loud when that realisation dawns on them.
It's even funnier on those rare occasions when the checkout operator notices and says 'Sorry about that' at which point you make a stage-whispered remark about 'criminals always trying to get credit card details' and then leave without once looking back. You want mind games, I have a compendium of them.
One short game that comes up over and over on forums all over the internet, and which also comes up in real life, is the 'You are evil unless you do what I say' game.
It is a pathetically simple mind game but it does work, again, as long as the subject does not realise how it works.
It also does not work on the sharp-witted such as Bella Gerens.
The trolls who won't play with me any more have visited Bella in the futile hope that they might be able to exert their petty influences there. Their game is, as always, trivial attempts at mind control by this method:
You post something on a blog or forum.
The Righteous responds with 'You have not condemned what [X] said about [Y]. I therefore have to conclude that you are as evil as them'.
You have never heard of [X] and when you look it up, you will find that what they 'said' about [Y] is taken out of context and twisted, or is entirely irrelevant to your posting.
Now you have a choice. Especially if you are one of most people, and actually care what people think of you. That is normal, I am not, I recognise that.
Do you do as the Righteous commands and decry the out-of-context or irrelevant thing, or do you point out that the Righteous is just being silly? Knowing, of course, that this apparently erudite commentator will denounce you as Racist-Nazi-Bigot-Paedo if you do not do as they say?
You think their arguments are clever, and you cannot be blamed for that. In reality, they are thicker than a very thick thing covered in thickening goo and baked in the thickening oven to maximum thickness but they don't know it. They are reading from a script but you won't know that unless you hang around and watch. Who has time? I did, for a while, and now make it a hobby to spot them. Hello, Macjuk, remember me? Oh and Ray, that short story 'Newton's Cradle' was seriously crap. You don't even understand the concept of 'mind game' and you are supposed to be training teachers?. John, I was the shadow on your tent on the Tyrebagger, you know. Mind games? Amateurs.
Those three are from Yahoo forums but they are around. I see you, Righteous, and I don't need CCTV. All of them have played this game over and over. The same thing every time.
If you agree to do as they say, if you enter into contract by bowing down and following orders, you are Owned. The Righteous chalks up another pet. You are now under their control and once in, it's hard to break out. How can you leave? If you disagree with anything you will be branded Racist-Nazi-Bigot-Paedo. That is not something you want. Especially if you are new to a forum. It is very hard to respond to an accusation of 'Racist' with 'Yeah. So what?'. It's like admitting you shag badgers.
Mind games are, at root, a game. Learn how to play them and you will find they are not hard games to win. Your opponent in this thought-chess game is not Boris Spassky, it is a ZX-81 with a power supply problem. Your opponents are not thinking this stuff up on the fly.
Your opponents are not thinking at all.
What they can't control is that the malleable give birth to the clever, so the smart ones increase and are smart enough to keep quiet until they are numerous enough to slap down the Righteous.
The Righteous are not too smart. If they were, they'd have worked out by now where they go wrong every time. I'm not going to tell them.
I've occasionally posted Righteous methods such as the bogeyman and the creeper and a few more in the past. They don't like it and are attempting to do something about it, which I have calculated for and am dealing with. It's not difficult. I'm not exactly pitting wits against Einstein here. Those are long-game methods, but individual Righteous will play short-game methods for their own amusement, and to reinforce their illusion of actually mattering in the world.
You will see these short games in supermarket and other queues, where the person behind you takes a series of small steps forward. This is to intimidate you into hurrying up. It plays on a primal fear, the slowly approaching predator, and it works very well on anyone who doesn't know about it. The best fun you can have with this is to slow down until they are right at your shoulder when it's time to pay. Then take out your credit card, put it in the reader and then turn and look them straight in the eye. At this point, they are in the position of a shoulder-surfer looking for credit card details and it is hard not to laugh out loud when that realisation dawns on them.
It's even funnier on those rare occasions when the checkout operator notices and says 'Sorry about that' at which point you make a stage-whispered remark about 'criminals always trying to get credit card details' and then leave without once looking back. You want mind games, I have a compendium of them.
One short game that comes up over and over on forums all over the internet, and which also comes up in real life, is the 'You are evil unless you do what I say' game.
It is a pathetically simple mind game but it does work, again, as long as the subject does not realise how it works.
It also does not work on the sharp-witted such as Bella Gerens.
The trolls who won't play with me any more have visited Bella in the futile hope that they might be able to exert their petty influences there. Their game is, as always, trivial attempts at mind control by this method:
You post something on a blog or forum.
The Righteous responds with 'You have not condemned what [X] said about [Y]. I therefore have to conclude that you are as evil as them'.
You have never heard of [X] and when you look it up, you will find that what they 'said' about [Y] is taken out of context and twisted, or is entirely irrelevant to your posting.
Now you have a choice. Especially if you are one of most people, and actually care what people think of you. That is normal, I am not, I recognise that.
Do you do as the Righteous commands and decry the out-of-context or irrelevant thing, or do you point out that the Righteous is just being silly? Knowing, of course, that this apparently erudite commentator will denounce you as Racist-Nazi-Bigot-Paedo if you do not do as they say?
You think their arguments are clever, and you cannot be blamed for that. In reality, they are thicker than a very thick thing covered in thickening goo and baked in the thickening oven to maximum thickness but they don't know it. They are reading from a script but you won't know that unless you hang around and watch. Who has time? I did, for a while, and now make it a hobby to spot them. Hello, Macjuk, remember me? Oh and Ray, that short story 'Newton's Cradle' was seriously crap. You don't even understand the concept of 'mind game' and you are supposed to be training teachers?. John, I was the shadow on your tent on the Tyrebagger, you know. Mind games? Amateurs.
Those three are from Yahoo forums but they are around. I see you, Righteous, and I don't need CCTV. All of them have played this game over and over. The same thing every time.
If you agree to do as they say, if you enter into contract by bowing down and following orders, you are Owned. The Righteous chalks up another pet. You are now under their control and once in, it's hard to break out. How can you leave? If you disagree with anything you will be branded Racist-Nazi-Bigot-Paedo. That is not something you want. Especially if you are new to a forum. It is very hard to respond to an accusation of 'Racist' with 'Yeah. So what?'. It's like admitting you shag badgers.
Mind games are, at root, a game. Learn how to play them and you will find they are not hard games to win. Your opponent in this thought-chess game is not Boris Spassky, it is a ZX-81 with a power supply problem. Your opponents are not thinking this stuff up on the fly.
Your opponents are not thinking at all.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Harriet's Dream.
A British man/woman/thing living in Australia has become the world's first officially genderless... um... person.
Well, that's harmless enough. He/she/it is British and wildly eccentric and causing no problems for anyone other than those who put signs on toilet doors. If he/she wants to become 'it', that should be of no consequence to anyone else beyond an interesting and typically British tale of eccentricity.
We used to like eccentrics, before we became so bloody po-faced and miserable all the time and so utterly intolerant of the slightest thing. It's bad enough that anyone who hints they might want to work with children is immediately suspected of being a pervert, and that photographers are regarded as terrorists, harassed by mindless drones in uniform and sometimes even arrested. Now you'll get in trouble for writing a list on a train. We don't have 'eccentric' any more. We only have 'deviant'. And it is becoming easier and easier to be classed as one.
Hideous Harman will no doubt be dampening her seat at the news. How much more equal can we get than if we were all gender neutral? She's probably dressed as the Red Queen even now, waving a pair of scissors and shouting 'Off with their bits!'.
The story of the first-ever gender-neutral is interesting and amusing, but the last line is not amusing. Not amusing at all.
The UK’s Gender Trust welcomed the case. A spokesman said: “Many people like the idea of being genderless.”
We have a 'Gender Trust'?
I don't like that, and I certainly don't like the way they think.
UPDATE: Found them. Oh dear.
One of the most depressing aspects of challenging transphobia is convincing people it is wrong, or indeed that it exists, (of which my spellchecker remains unconvinced).
They've invented a new 'phobia' which nobody suffers from because nobody has heard of it yet, but they're going to defend people from it whether they want it or not, and demand that transexuals stop living quiet lives where nobody knows or cares about their original gender, and instead have 'Trans!' tattooed on their foreheads.
I can't tell who has had gender reassignment surgery unless they tell me. I can't even tell who is gay or straight among the people I know (with one rather blatantly camp exception) and I don't ask because I don't care. For all I know, aside from the few I've known since childhood, every one of my current friends might have started out as the other gender. It's none of my business and it should stay that way. If they want me to know, they'll tell me. They should certainly not be 'encouraged' to tell me by people who have no more business asking those questions than I would.
I can't get the fakecharities site to load, but I'm willing to bet it's already in there.
Well, that's harmless enough. He/she/it is British and wildly eccentric and causing no problems for anyone other than those who put signs on toilet doors. If he/she wants to become 'it', that should be of no consequence to anyone else beyond an interesting and typically British tale of eccentricity.
We used to like eccentrics, before we became so bloody po-faced and miserable all the time and so utterly intolerant of the slightest thing. It's bad enough that anyone who hints they might want to work with children is immediately suspected of being a pervert, and that photographers are regarded as terrorists, harassed by mindless drones in uniform and sometimes even arrested. Now you'll get in trouble for writing a list on a train. We don't have 'eccentric' any more. We only have 'deviant'. And it is becoming easier and easier to be classed as one.
Hideous Harman will no doubt be dampening her seat at the news. How much more equal can we get than if we were all gender neutral? She's probably dressed as the Red Queen even now, waving a pair of scissors and shouting 'Off with their bits!'.
The story of the first-ever gender-neutral is interesting and amusing, but the last line is not amusing. Not amusing at all.
The UK’s Gender Trust welcomed the case. A spokesman said: “Many people like the idea of being genderless.”
We have a 'Gender Trust'?
I don't like that, and I certainly don't like the way they think.
UPDATE: Found them. Oh dear.
One of the most depressing aspects of challenging transphobia is convincing people it is wrong, or indeed that it exists, (of which my spellchecker remains unconvinced).
They've invented a new 'phobia' which nobody suffers from because nobody has heard of it yet, but they're going to defend people from it whether they want it or not, and demand that transexuals stop living quiet lives where nobody knows or cares about their original gender, and instead have 'Trans!' tattooed on their foreheads.
I can't tell who has had gender reassignment surgery unless they tell me. I can't even tell who is gay or straight among the people I know (with one rather blatantly camp exception) and I don't ask because I don't care. For all I know, aside from the few I've known since childhood, every one of my current friends might have started out as the other gender. It's none of my business and it should stay that way. If they want me to know, they'll tell me. They should certainly not be 'encouraged' to tell me by people who have no more business asking those questions than I would.
I can't get the fakecharities site to load, but I'm willing to bet it's already in there.
A Jury of your Grandad's Peers.
Found somewhere or other. I forget. It's me age, you know. Mrs. Brady originally comes from Vizland, a place where the Righteous dare not tread.The Monsters in government really have nothing much to do, so they plan to send those in the 70-90 age group off to do jury service.
Fine with me. The way I smoke and drink, it would be illegal for me to get that old. They won't believe I'm still alive even if I am.
It does conjure up a great image though. Imagine the contents of the nursing home discharged into the jury box.
Judge: Silence in court.
Juror 1: What's 'e saying?
Juror 2: 'e says shut yer gob.
Juror 3; Eh?
Judge: Silence!
Juror 4: Who's that nice young man in the glass box?
Juror 5: That's the rapist.
Judge (turning purple) Silence! may I remind you that the accused is innocent until proven guilty?
Juror 3: Eh?
Juror 6: Innocent, eh? They all say that you know. All them rapists.
Juror 7: He looks a bit shifty to me. What's that in his trousers?
Juror 1: What's 'e saying?
Judge: SILENCE. Please?
Juror 8: There's no need to shout.
Juror 3: Eh? What's everyone whispering about?
Juror 4: Never mind. We'll tell you when to vote 'guilty'.
Juror 9: When do we get our tea?
Juror 10: Tea be buggered. Where's the gin?
Judge: Will you be quiet?
Juror 11: I haven't said a word. He doesn't half go on, doesn't he? On and on and on. You'd think he was in charge or something.
Juror 4: He is in charge. He's the Beak.
Juror 7: No, you silly old bat. That's a magistrate. This man is one of those things with a wig on.
Juror 12: Des O'Connor?
Judge: (in tears). Please be quiet. Please, for God's sake, stop talking.
Juror 3: Eh?
Juror 1: We ought to be more respectful when he asks us to be quiet, you know.
Juror 6: Doris is right. 'e's an old man, after all.
It would really be worth being on that jury.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Don't get ill. The NHS doesn't like it.
All you sick people are costing the NHS money. You horrible, horrible sickies with your non-smoking and non-drinking-related diseases are costing two billion quid a year to fix. That's almost as much as smokers, and you lot aren't even paying extra tax to cover it! Those illnesses can't be linked to a health scare either so there's no point in bothering with them. Well, the NHS has had enough of you getting into their doctor's surgeries and spreading your second hand squits and third hand sneezes all over the place. They want you to stay home and die quietly.
Seriously. The NHS can't understand why so many people run to their doctor at the slightest sniffle or ache.
This is the same NHS who promote the idea that any sniffle or ache might be swine flu. The same NHS who promote the ASH nonsense that sitting in a chair once occupied by a smoker will give you cancer. The same NHS who spout the terrible news that tuberculosis is on the rise, norovirus lurks in every cafeteria, any scratch will result in MRSA or necrotising fasciitis, if the alcohol doesn't get you then passive drinking will, if you don't die of obesity you'll die of anorexia, you are going to get diabetes if you have a can of fizzy pop, caffeine will make your heart explode, salt will turn you to stone, if you masturbate you'll grow hairs on the palms of your hands and go blind, if you have sex you'll get AIDS or cancer of the naughty bits and if you hold it in, your prostate will eat your nuts.
But they just can't understand why the entire population is made up of feeble little crybabies who run to the doctor if they have a bit of a sore head.
Our health nannies have put out instructions on how to wash your hands, how to use a toilet, what you can eat and drink and what you can't, how much exercise you must do, what you can inhale, and soon lessons on how to sleep and how to move quickly from one place to another.
It's not even consistent. Once, eggs were great, then eggs were full of cholesterol and would give you heart attacks, and now eggs are great again. Drinka pinta milka day - remember that? Now, everyone thinks they are lactose intolerant and every pint of milk will translate into six gallons of dysentery as it passes through their bodies. Chicken is healthy, chicken will give you campylobacter, chocolate is good - bad - good - bad, and so on. No wonder people's heads are spinning. They are listening to this crap.
Some people really do have a problem with milk, but very few. It's usually the milk proteins rather than the lactose. But hey, let's not get distracted by reality here. We are talking about the NHS.
All the NHS wants is your money. Spending that money on treating illnesses is such a waste. If we all took out private healthcare, they could sack all the doctors and nurses and every administrator could have an entire ward for an office.
They don't want to treat smokers. They don't want to treat drinkers. They don't want to treat the overweight. All those people get major ailments and that costs money. Now they don't want to treat people with minor ailments either, because that costs money too. Money that taxpayers have paid in. The NHS is not free healthcare. It is pre-paid healthcare. If you're not paying in, someone else is paying for you. It is not free. It is, in fact, bloody expensive.
NHS - what is the point of you? Why are you so expensive when you don't want to actually do anything? Why, if smokers are paying 10 billion, costing you 2.7 billion (you claim), are you not delighted to welcome us with open arms if we do get sick? We pay four times as much as we cost, on top of the income and NI taxes, and you don't even like us if we have a broken arm!
The NHS has put out scare story after scare story, and is now surprised to find that the people they have been trying to scare are, amazingly enough, scared. The NHS does not want to do the job it is paid to do. Therefore, the only answer is to close it down.
They do have important matters to attend to, of course. I mean, drop those scalpels and needles, people, there are far more important things than patients to deal with.
There's taking offense at an advert, for a start.
What the NHS needs is a simple clearout system. If your office has a carpet, you're sacked. The money could go towards some doctors, nurses and cleaning staff for a start.
There'd be enough left over for two on-site bars, one smoking and one non-smoking.
Seriously. The NHS can't understand why so many people run to their doctor at the slightest sniffle or ache.
This is the same NHS who promote the idea that any sniffle or ache might be swine flu. The same NHS who promote the ASH nonsense that sitting in a chair once occupied by a smoker will give you cancer. The same NHS who spout the terrible news that tuberculosis is on the rise, norovirus lurks in every cafeteria, any scratch will result in MRSA or necrotising fasciitis, if the alcohol doesn't get you then passive drinking will, if you don't die of obesity you'll die of anorexia, you are going to get diabetes if you have a can of fizzy pop, caffeine will make your heart explode, salt will turn you to stone, if you masturbate you'll grow hairs on the palms of your hands and go blind, if you have sex you'll get AIDS or cancer of the naughty bits and if you hold it in, your prostate will eat your nuts.
But they just can't understand why the entire population is made up of feeble little crybabies who run to the doctor if they have a bit of a sore head.
Our health nannies have put out instructions on how to wash your hands, how to use a toilet, what you can eat and drink and what you can't, how much exercise you must do, what you can inhale, and soon lessons on how to sleep and how to move quickly from one place to another.
It's not even consistent. Once, eggs were great, then eggs were full of cholesterol and would give you heart attacks, and now eggs are great again. Drinka pinta milka day - remember that? Now, everyone thinks they are lactose intolerant and every pint of milk will translate into six gallons of dysentery as it passes through their bodies. Chicken is healthy, chicken will give you campylobacter, chocolate is good - bad - good - bad, and so on. No wonder people's heads are spinning. They are listening to this crap.
Some people really do have a problem with milk, but very few. It's usually the milk proteins rather than the lactose. But hey, let's not get distracted by reality here. We are talking about the NHS.
All the NHS wants is your money. Spending that money on treating illnesses is such a waste. If we all took out private healthcare, they could sack all the doctors and nurses and every administrator could have an entire ward for an office.
They don't want to treat smokers. They don't want to treat drinkers. They don't want to treat the overweight. All those people get major ailments and that costs money. Now they don't want to treat people with minor ailments either, because that costs money too. Money that taxpayers have paid in. The NHS is not free healthcare. It is pre-paid healthcare. If you're not paying in, someone else is paying for you. It is not free. It is, in fact, bloody expensive.
NHS - what is the point of you? Why are you so expensive when you don't want to actually do anything? Why, if smokers are paying 10 billion, costing you 2.7 billion (you claim), are you not delighted to welcome us with open arms if we do get sick? We pay four times as much as we cost, on top of the income and NI taxes, and you don't even like us if we have a broken arm!
The NHS has put out scare story after scare story, and is now surprised to find that the people they have been trying to scare are, amazingly enough, scared. The NHS does not want to do the job it is paid to do. Therefore, the only answer is to close it down.
They do have important matters to attend to, of course. I mean, drop those scalpels and needles, people, there are far more important things than patients to deal with.
There's taking offense at an advert, for a start.
What the NHS needs is a simple clearout system. If your office has a carpet, you're sacked. The money could go towards some doctors, nurses and cleaning staff for a start.
There'd be enough left over for two on-site bars, one smoking and one non-smoking.
Smoky and Drinky Linkies
I've added even more clutter to that sidebar. It's that sort of attitude that's left me with a garage full of crap and an attic I'm scared to venture into.
Well, anyway, I put up a smoky-drinky linky section where I'll put websites that defend one or other or both. Suggestions welcome.
Well, anyway, I put up a smoky-drinky linky section where I'll put websites that defend one or other or both. Suggestions welcome.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)