Sunday, March 20, 2011

Sunday, March 20, 2011: (Gospel of Transfiguration)
God the Father said: “I AM WHO AM. You just watched the Ten Commandments, and this phrase is how I described Myself to Moses. I also told Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. When you honor the Blessed Sacrament, you are honoring the Blessed Trinity because wherever Jesus is, all Three of Us are present as One God in Three Persons. Even St. Patrick taught about the Blessed Trinity in the three leaf shamrock. Whenever you pray the ‘Our Father’ or the ‘Glory Be’, remember Me in your prayers. On this beautiful day with the sun shining and blue skies, you have a true appreciation of My creation. I want you to love one another, and stop your constant wars that offend Me greatly. All killing in abortion or the evil deeds of men and women that result in deaths need to be stopped. Pray and treat life with respect and dignity. Thank you for honoring Me in your Eternal Father prayer group, and My protection will always be with you. Trust that all people will answer to Me for their deeds in their judgment.”
View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

A Sunday Ramble.

Warning: Brain is freewheeling on this one. Anything can happen.

I confess. I forgot the clocks changed and found it was an hour later than I'd anticipated last night, so abandoned posting. I'd been watching more of those DVDs I found in the garage. Watching '1984' was a mistake. Towards the end, the viewscreens announce a glorious victory for the forces of Oceania on the African front. Looking at the newspapers immediately afterwards was a little disturbing.

A lot happened yesterday. It was Census Eve and it was also Earth Hour day. I forgot about that too. Well, the clocks went forward, I lost an hour, so Earth Hour must have been the hour I lost. That's okay, I didn't need that one anyway.

Then there were protests in London at which Moribund Minor exhorted his drones to higher and higher levels of lunacy whereby they protest about the 'cuts that are not cuts' that would have happened whoever was in government. The newspapers scream 'Anarchists!' but protesters demanding more government intervention are not anarchists. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's interesting how people have been made to fear anarchists, even though the word describes someone who is against all forms of government and who wants a world in which everyone makes their own decisions, with no interference from the State at all. It is not logically possible to fear anarchy because it means 'do whatever you want'. That includes setting up a local council/government if you want, as long as you don't impose it on people who don't want it. Belgium functions with no government. So might Somalia if it wasn't for all the statists trying to impose their own version of dictatorship by violence. Africa, as a continent, functioned perfectly well for thousands of years with no government and no national boundaries of any kind. So did everywhere else.

I am not a full anarchist. I see the logic in centrally funded police, ambulance, fire, military etc. Locally funding those things could mean that if you're a stranger in town and haven't paid in locally, you're not covered if you get mugged, fall over or spontaneously combust. So I suppose I'm some kind of minarchist, I haven't worked out a definition yet and might never bother.

I see no role for government outside those areas. None. I do not see the logic in letting government dictate who a pub, club or cafe can allow on the premises, nor any sense at all in dictating who can buy cigarettes, beer or pies. I would abolish the minimum age for all these things and make it the parents' responsibility.

So if your eight-year-old comes home plastered, you do something about it. Do not cry 'Something must be done' and expect Nanny to step in. While I agree something should be done, I would say it's the parents' responsibility to do it. If the child gets drunk and attacks old ladies, as a parent, that's your responsibility. You sort the little bugger out or you take the penalty. If on the other hand, the child likes a beer now and then and never causes any trouble at all, why should anyone intervene? An occasional beer will neither kill a child nor turn it into a raging alcoholic. It might even turn them into a responsible drinker who can hold their sauce without going berserk.

Age of majority, when the child becomes an adult? Pick one and stick to it. Currently people are adult enough to get married, have sex and children at 16, adult enough to join the military a few months later, but not adult enough to drive until 17 and still not adult enough to decide whether they'd like a drink or a smoke until 18. The really weird one is where you can marry and have sex at 16 but can't watch a sex film, including the instructional ones, until you're 18. There was a case a while back where an instructional video on checking for cancer of the danglies was forbidden from 15-year-old eyes, even though those eyes are just a few feet above the very danglies the video claims are at risk. So check your bag of lumps for lumps, lads, but we aren't going to tell you how until it's too late. Hint: If your count is greater than two, that's not right.

One age, not this ridiculous phasing-in of adulthood. Because of the uncertainty, because of the blurred edges of responsibility, more and more people never make the transition at all.

Make it clear. Pick an age, say 16, and on that 16th birthday you are an adult, and a child no more. If you've been a total little waster for the past 16 years, your parents no longer take the rap when you smash up a phone box, steal from shops, beat up pensioners, desecrate churches or paint Cherie Blair's face around a postbox slot (actually, I don't think that last one should be a crime because I, for one, would find it excruciatingly funny).

From the parents' point of view, if they have been cursed with an uncontrollable hellspawn for 16 years, then on its 16th birthday they can give it suitcases and a one-way ticket to a faraway place. They are no longer responsible for this horrible little goblin. Seeing that happen to a few older gang members might focus the younger minds somewhat. I would anticipate the incidence of such events being high at first but then declining very rapidly indeed.

At the point where you become an adult you can smoke or not smoke as you choose. You can eat pies or salads as you choose. You can drink or not drink as you choose. If you get into trouble, your parents are no longer responsible for your actions. You would know this for certain because it would be clear and simple. There would be no period of 'he was drunk but he's still a child, really'. The child/adult definition would be absolutely clear.

Another thing that would be clear is that while the choices are now yours, the responsibilty for those choices is also yours. If you decide to drink until your liver looks like a colander that's been used for shotgun practice, you are responsible for that. Nobody else. If you turn into a wobbly version of the Hulk when plastered and smash things, you are responsible. Not the brewery, nor the pub. No 'Oh, but I had a hard life, innit?' excuses. So did I for a time, as a result of my own bad choices. I stayed mostly sober and got out of there. I could have descended into the bottom of a bottle of cheap sherry, as many did, and been found frozen to a park bench by my own solidified urine. Choices work both ways.

Many people don't want choices. They don't want responsibility. They want the government to take the choices and responsibility away from them and tell them how to live their lives, every minute of every day. We only have one life each and it astounds me how many are happy to let someone else live it for them. How many turn up at the Pearly Gates and, when asked to account for their lives, respond with 'I was only obeying orders'? But then living in thrall to a supposed superior is, in itself, a form of choice. If they are happy with their choice to give their lives up to slavery, why would I want to change them?

I don't. Let them live how they choose, even if that means they forfeit all further options. Why would I care at all?

I care because in giving up their choices to the monster we call government, they make that monster powerful enough to impose its will on those of us who don't want to give up our lives, our choices, our responsibilities and our thoughts to the monster. Conform or be declared insane, when conformity is clearly insanity.

Is it sane to hand over your only chance at life to someone else, to spend your only existence in this world as a drone, doing exactly as you are told, cutting the lawn every Saturday, washing the car every Sunday, accepting a bollocking for being five minutes late for work while accepting that it's 'normal' to work through your lunch break and then take more work home for no extra pay? Is it sane to accept that, as a condition of employment, your employer can dictate what you do in your personal life? Is it sane to strive for no more than to be exactly the same as everyone else and to enforce that sameness on the rest of your hive, on pain of expulsion or death? It's normal if you're an ant or a bee.

One go at life is all I'll get so is it really asking too much that I be allowed to live it as I choose, with no harm or even inconvenience to anyone else? So I don't listen to the health advice that changes daily. Who is harmed? Nobody. Oddly enough, not even me. Yet if I gain weight I will be a 'drain on the NHS' even though my medical file must be thin enough to slip under a door despite years of smoking and fine malts and salt and pork scratchings and all the rest. I don't use the NHS. Maybe I will one day, but by then I'll have paid in enough to have solid gold contacts on the defibrillator and catheters fashioned from the rarest sea-cucumbers encrusted with diamonds (ouch! Maybe skip the diamonds) and I still won't cost more than I've paid in. So forget the guilt trip. At the end I plan to recoup as much as possible of all that money I've been forced to hand over to the State and I will not suffer even a twinge of regret.

As for organ donations, forget it. When I've finished with this body, it will be displayed to medical students in the 'How the hell did he live that long?' section of their museum. I am not nurturing spare parts for others. Nor do I want spare parts installed. Sure, there'll be cries of 'Yeah, you would, if it was that or death'. No I would not.

If I had a heart transplant I would be on immunosuppressive drugs and under close medical supervision. No smoking. No drinking. No pies and no pork scratchings. A life of hell and for what? A few extra years until the Lucasparts heart gives up. I'd rather die earlier and happy in the knowledge that I had a good time right to the end. It is absurd to spend your life fearing death. It is going to happen. There is no way to stop it. It might be quick or it might be slow but it is going to happen. Forget about it. Enjoy the time you have because there is no telling when it will end.

Unless, of course, you allow your dronemasters to decide you're old, unproductive and costing the NHS money, and that it's time you were euthanased and maybe broken up for spares. Never happen? Look around you. It's already begun.

Make your choice.

Well, I still have the census form in pristine condition here. I won't fill it in today. Not because I don't have time but because I can't be bothered with it today. Maybe tomorrow. Or the next day.

Or maybe I'll wait until they send someone to 'help'. That could be entertaining.

Merry Census, everyone.

Oooo, I found my copy of 'Simon Says'. A gorefest awaits. I especially like the flying pickaxes in this one.

View the original article here

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Sunday, March 20, 2011: (Gospel of Transfiguration)
God the Father said: “I AM WHO AM. You just watched the Ten Commandments, and this phrase is how I described Myself to Moses. I also told Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. When you honor the Blessed Sacrament, you are honoring the Blessed Trinity because wherever Jesus is, all Three of Us are present as One God in Three Persons. Even St. Patrick taught about the Blessed Trinity in the three leaf shamrock. Whenever you pray the ‘Our Father’ or the ‘Glory Be’, remember Me in your prayers. On this beautiful day with the sun shining and blue skies, you have a true appreciation of My creation. I want you to love one another, and stop your constant wars that offend Me greatly. All killing in abortion or the evil deeds of men and women that result in deaths need to be stopped. Pray and treat life with respect and dignity. Thank you for honoring Me in your Eternal Father prayer group, and My protection will always be with you. Trust that all people will answer to Me for their deeds in their judgment.”

View the original article here

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Sunday, March 20, 2011: (Gospel of Transfiguration)
God the Father said: “I AM WHO AM. You just watched the Ten Commandments, and this phrase is how I described Myself to Moses. I also told Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. When you honor the Blessed Sacrament, you are honoring the Blessed Trinity because wherever Jesus is, all Three of Us are present as One God in Three Persons. Even St. Patrick taught about the Blessed Trinity in the three leaf shamrock. Whenever you pray the ‘Our Father’ or the ‘Glory Be’, remember Me in your prayers. On this beautiful day with the sun shining and blue skies, you have a true appreciation of My creation. I want you to love one another, and stop your constant wars that offend Me greatly. All killing in abortion or the evil deeds of men and women that result in deaths need to be stopped. Pray and treat life with respect and dignity. Thank you for honoring Me in your Eternal Father prayer group, and My protection will always be with you. Trust that all people will answer to Me for their deeds in their judgment.”

View the original article here

LETTERS - SUNDAY TIMES, SCOTSMAN & SPIKED

I am told the Scotsman published a letter of mine yesterday and Professor Stephen Salter responds to it and others today, saying, among other things, that it is not illegal to build a nuclear power plants in Britain without a goverment licence?? This seems so silly that it would be unworthy to reply to it though perhaps somebody else will make a small mention of it en passant. He also says that the variability of windmills can be "forecast several days ahead" when in fact they can vary from second to second - this is why, if windmills ever get above 10% of our power, they are likely to destabilise the entire grid. My letter is not on the Scotsman's website but this was it.

The media coverage of the Japanese nuclear "catastrophe" in which not one person has been killed ot injured, far outpaced the coverage of the real catastrophe in which around 10,000 people have died. While nobody is dead of radiation people are dying of hypothermia, but that is infinitely less newsworthy, as relatives of the 25,000 pensioners who die, unnecessarily, of fuel poverty in Britain annually, know well.

Nuclear remains far and away the safest method of generating power, as well as being the least polluting and least expensive. This is known by all those who have looked seriously at the issues and acknowledged by all of them who are honest. Perhaps, as the reactors continue to fail to explode, the media will acknowledge that their reporting has been both inaccurate and hysterical. Or perhaps they will simply move on to the next scare story expecting their readers not to notice

Steuart told me I also have a letter in the Sunday Times. It is behind a paywall but I have been sent it and it was this one. The bits in bold were edited out.

We see the "environmentalists" are eager to talk about the Japanese catastrophe. Not the earthquake and Tsunami which has killed more than 2,000 people, probably far more, but the consequent failure of 2 reactors which have caused neither death not injury to anybody. This disproportionate coverage of anything with the magic word "nuclear" is normal across our media.



For example compare the coverage of Chernobyl, where a total of 56 people died with that of the Ufa train disaster also in the dying days of the USSR, where over 500 people died. Both were equally the result of incompetent management, but the latter, though 10 times worse, was never newsworthy because no nuclear "black magic" was involved.

The fact is that nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other comparable industrial process. For example in the last 20 years 2 people have died in one nuclear accident, a figure not today altered, in an industry that produces 20% of the world's electricity, whereas over 50 have died falling from wind turbines, in a subsidy driven "industry" that produces under 0.1%. I don't know if the earthquake has caused any Japanese windmills to fail - because I do know that if it has happened it would not be "newsworthy."

   While we are at it here is a letter Spiked published online. It was a response to an article giving 5 reasons the Japanese accident isn't that bad.

A sixth point I would like to raise in addition to Lyons’ five is that the assumption of any deaths from even intermediate levels of radiation, such as those at Chernobyl, depend entirely on the ‘Linear No Threshold’ hypothesis, that radiation damage falls in a direct line for any amount of radiation. This is a ‘precautionary principle’ hypothesis for which there is not and never has been any evidence.

It goes against all experience in other fields: for example, the linear no threshold theory of mass would say that since the chances that an elephant falling on you will kill you are roughly 100 per cent, the chance that putting on a hat will kill you must be must be about 0.1 per cent and multiplying that by the hat-wearing population of London would mean hundreds of deaths daily. On this basis the LNT theory was used to predict 500,000 deaths from Chernobyl, none of which have happened. Predictions that it will ultimately kill 9,000 or 4,000 assume that after 20 years of not happening these deaths will start shortly.

As I say there is no actual evidence for LNT. However there is a mass of statistical evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation actually stimulates health. This comes from statistical measures of background radiation; of radon in homes; of experience of nuclear workers; of accidents; of naturally occuring background radiation; of experiments with plants: and animals: and of the subsequent histories of Chernobyl: and of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Here is a collection of links to the evidence.

   I have  sent out a number of other letters to all and sundry, partly cannibalised from each other. I think now is an important time to be doing this since in the next few days either nuclear power will have been successfully demonised by media hysteria, as happened over Three Mile Island, or the MSM coverage will be discredited by the hysteria becoming apparent. My opinion, looking at the balance of online comments, such as this for Channel 4, suggests sense is winning.

     I sent the Herald a letter in reply to a reply to mine. They are entitled to the first chance to publish it. It contained this link to the UN reports 56 dead at Chernobyl  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2005/09/05/UN_Chernobyl20050905.html

To the Scotsman (I initially thought this first one was the one Salter was replying to but no.

Once again we have Stephen Salter claiming nuclear is not cheaper than "renewables" - so long as you invent some imaginary cost for waste disposal, something which any engineer knows has long been, technologically a non-problem; and so long as he is allowed to invent posit massive reduction in "renewable" costs at some unknown future date. We have previously been here when in this letter page it was proven that his figures were wrong and that nuclear is 1/10th the cost of onshore windmills. Offshore are about 50% more.

Of course I could always posit that if the political regulatory regime were less onerous the cost could be more than halved. This is justified by the fact that nuclear, even after the Japanese debacle, has a safety record undeniably hundreds and arguably many thousands of times better than any comparable industry. It could be halved again if true mass production of reactors for a world market were permitted. On the other hand if we were to demand clean up standards for windmills matching those of nuclear (removal of the thousand tons of poured concrete in the bases & a full environmental investigation to ensure the replacement soil were exactly the same, containing no new organisms, that was there originally) the cost of windmills could be pushed up at least 10 fold.

On that basis we could calculate a price differential of 600 times. However the real and proven differential of windmills costing 10 times what nuclear can, while being conservative, adequately shows that the former can only be supported on ideological Luddite grounds rather than engineering ones. It is to be regretted that the ratio of engineers to Luddites in politics and the subsidy dependent "industries" runs at far less than 1:10.

A short and fun reply to the Scotsman

John Addison's invocation of the shades of Dan Dare and Flash Gordon to solve our problems is unnecessary (letter today). There are no such problems that need solving. Humanity is doing better than at any time in history. Neither Gaddafi, catastrophic warming, a reactor that exposes locals to less radioactivity than eating a banana, nor passive smoking threaten us. Can we not get rid of, or at least stop giving tax money, to all these people battening on such false scares?

To newspapersw eveywhere.

We see the "environmentalists" are eager to talk about the Japanese catastrophe. Not the earthquake and Tsunami which has killed more than 2,000 people, probably far more, but the consequent failure of 2 reactors which have caused neither death not injury to anybody. This disproportionate coverage of anything with the magic word "nuclear" is normal across our media.

For example compare the coverage of Chernobyl, where a total of 56 people died with that of the Ufa train disaster also in the dying days of the USSR, where over 500 people died. Both were equally the result of incompetent management, but the latter, though 10 times worse, was never "newsworthy" because no nuclear "black magic" was involved.

The fact is that nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other comparable industrial process. For example in the last 20 years 2 people have died in one nuclear accident, a fighure not today altered, in an industry that produces 20% of the world's electricity, whereas over 50 have died falling from wind turbines, in a subsidy driven "industry" that produces under 0.1%. I don't know if the earthquake has caused any Japanese windmills to fail - because I do know that if it has happened it would not be "newsworthy."

Perhaps some will say that the radiation hazard justifies coverage unrelated to real casualties. A
fter all did they not predict half a million deaths from Chernobyl, based on the No Lower Threshold (LNT) theory of radiation damage? Indeed they did. However statistical examination since then has shown not one of those 500,000 deaths they predicted happened. The LNT hypothesis has never been anything but an evidence free scare story. Despite it's"official" acceptance by government apparatchiks in both the Soviet and "democratic" worlds it has never had any scientific evidence whatsoever behind it. Ask any government authority what evidence they have that low level radiation is harmful and they will say "trust us" and change the subject. In fact there is massive evidence, from many unrelated sources, that low level radiation is not only not harmful but beneficial, as anybody who has taken spa waters, or indeed the current inhabitants of the Chernobly region testify.

What the anti-technology crowd won't say is that, when disasters strike, far and away the most important factor in saving lives is having an advanced technology. Compare the 2,000 dead in Japan with the Chinese earthquake of 1976. It was a magnitude 7.8, less that 1/10 the 8.9 of this one (the Richter scale goes up 10 fold for each level). The difference is that then China was dirt poor whereas modern Japan isn't. If the "greens" really cared about human wellbeing they would enthusiastically support every instance of human progress, including more (CO2 free) nuclear power.

Ref - radiation hormesis overwhelming evidence http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/low-level-radiation-evidence-that-it-is.html
Locals at Chernobyl enjoying hormesis http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-chernobyl-60-year-old-men-appear-not.html
Ufa Soviet train crash 500 killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufa_train_disaster
Chernobyl 56 killed http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
============================
And finally, and nothing to do with me, is compelling evidence that the media hysteria story is collapsing. The Guardian's George Moonbat has thrown in the towel and accepted that nuclear is a good thing and all the media lies have been destructive. Of course he still has the bad grace to denounce the nuclear industry "liars" who told him this years ago and has no word of condemnation of the real liars from Greenpeaces, FoE, the LudDims, Professor Salter, the SNP etc. etc. not least himself, who have battened on this scare lie and attendent subsidies for decades.

You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers....

  As if the corrupt bastard had only just found out what the true TMI radiation level was.Labels: letters, nuclear, Scottish politics

View the original article here

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Sunday, February 27, 2011:
Jesus said: “My people, you have had a deep revelation in your spirit how you and others will need to become more childlike in your faith. What this means is that you need to separate yourself from worldly pleasures as much as you are able. The reason for this is that the more you can divest yourself of worldly pleasures, the less purification you will need in purgatory. In order to cross this bridge of the vision into heaven you will need to cleanse yourself of all earthly things so you become totally fixed on holy things and on Me. The closer you are to Me, and the more you fulfill My mission, the more graces you will receive to fight off the devil’s temptations. As you start refusing to desire the earthly things that please you, the devil will have a harder time to entice you into your old sins or your habitual sins. Ask Me to send angels around you for your protection from the evil ones. Prepare your soul to receive Me at your death. You will need My help to become more holy. My story is one of love, and I call you to love Me, and everyone else, even your enemies. When you have a love relationship with Me, it will not be complete unless you love your neighbor unconditionally, as I love. With My help and true love of Me and holy things, you could be brought to the higher places in heaven. Seeking Me in My Eucharist is your taste of heaven on earth. This is why I draw you to daily Mass, prayers, and Adoration so you can be close to Me and drink in the love of My Divine Mercy for your soul.”

Jesus said: “My people, I want you to analyze your spiritual life to see if you are improving in your perfection, or whether you are falling backwards into your old sins. Do not be satisfied with the status quo of no improvement. I have asked you to be holy as My heavenly Father is holy, and to be perfect as My heavenly Father is perfect. In order to enter heaven you need to be cleansed of all of your sins and earthly desires. You need to be improving on your road to perfection. You cannot stand still or become lukewarm in your faith, or Satan will sift you like sand. Ask My help through prayer and worship of My Blessed Sacrament, and you can grow in your holiness. Keep moving up these steps toward heaven, and one day I will welcome you into My wedding banquet in heaven.”

View the original article here

The Sunday Silly – Josh on why the climate change “war” is like the war in Iraq

This gets the honor of “Climate Craziness of the Week”. Oh, that’s gonna leave a mark…

Josh writes in an email: her actual quote was:

“If we are to overcome the climate crisis we must move on to the equivalent of a war footing”

And she then likened the leadership this would require to Tony Blair’s in taking us to war in Iraq

But that’s too long for a satirical political cartoon, so Josh took the essence. Unfortunately I can’t seem to locate the online link as the Sunday Times link sends visitors to the paywall. It was in “features” and titled:

A very heated debate

Josh is working from the print edition in the UK, so I’ll take his word for it.

Here’s a letter Lucas penned in 2003 about the war in Iraq:

It is very telling. These quotes are pertinent:

They point not only to the imminent military war, which they recognise could have devastating consequences, but also to the ongoing economic war, which is being prosecuted by the US and Britain in particular, through the imposition of economic sanctions over a decade.

Um, in case you haven’t noticed lady, greens are waging economic war in the UK.

A recent broadsheet headline screamed: “Stop the war? Try telling that to the tyrannised people of Iraq.”

and …

An attack on the roads, bridges, ports or railways of Iraq would severely damage what is now an extremely well functioning food distribution system.

So will Lucas advocate stopping the tyrannizing of the British people by absurd green laws, protest takeovers of power plants by greens in the UK, Plane Stupid’s attacks on Heathrow airport, and threats of occasional electricity in the future?

Doubtful, in this case of greens -vs- the UK infrastructure, Lucas is the war leader.

Some deep self reflection is sorely needed by this confused woman.

View the original article here