Boring polticians

I'm reading the new biography of Margaret Thetcher, and I must admit it's heavy lifting, in more ways than one. For one thing, the author doesn't particularly like Thatcher; he believes she has no interior life. He can't comprehend a somewhat colorless lower middle class woman who, if I'm reading it correctly, was smart but not sensationally so. So, if she did not master any material or pass a test, she redoubled her efforts and slogged through the work required until she had done her absolute best.

A true Englishwoman with a stiff upper lip you could bounce bullets off, she was the diametric opposite of the lip-biting Bill Clinton, who shared his pain in Macy's window for all the world to see. She seems to have been temperamentally a true conservative by nature. Even in her youth, she never entertained liberal views. She appears to have been honest; there were no scandals or corruption in her administration. She made her husband breakfast every day that it was humanly possible to do so, and if her marriage was not happy no-one knew, and they will not find out now. She took her secrets to the grave.

She was a true straight arrow who apparently analyzed the problems of her country with dogged determination until she decided what was the right course, and then followed that course. She was not one to waste her time and energy on wishful thinking but preferred to face facts. The most dramatic event of her administration was the battle with Argentina over the Falklands, which seemed to excite her and revive patriotism among the British.

It's tough to read about such a colorless, and basically boring person, especially after reading about a colorful and flamboyant character like Winston Churchill. The American politician she most resembles is Calvin Coolidge, a man of great reserve from a New England which had not yet embraced the emotional virtues of the Kennedy family. Neither of these made a parade of compassion, or said anything particularly witty or memorable. Both, however, presided over periods of great prosperity.

Do we want to go this route?

It sounds unpleasant, if not dangerous.

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation said: “It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future.

“If we pull our finger out now we can limit blackouts but it’s going to be pretty grim whatever happens.”...[ ]


Blackouts could force the Government to impose electricity rationing, last seen in the Seventies. The REF report says the Government “should prepare itself to intervene with social policy to prevent hardship and maintain order”.

It criticises ministers for focusing too heavily on such untried renewable energy sources as wind and tide power, rather than making sure that secure new power generation was put in place.

The report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

Great Britain seems to have adopted the policy favored by the Democrats. Apparently it isn't working very well for them.

Thanks to Ker-Plunk for the link.

George Orwell communicates from beyond the grave...

and he still makes more sense than the current British government, who are still alive. Only their brains are dead.

Britain plans to curb obesity

Obesity is the root cause of many problems in the troubled British Health System. But a plan is afoot to prevent the British people from becoming obese and to get the obese to slim down.

A

t the heart of the programme will be 250,000 outreach counsellors who will patrol supermarket aisles looking for 'inappropriate choicemakers'.

Once they have identified a target the uniformed counsellors will approach the shopper and scream: "PUT IT DOWN FATTY! PUT IT DOWN!"[]...


The counsellors will also have the power to force fat people to strip down to their underpants and run around the car park for 20 minutes.

Socialism at work

According to the Telegraph:

The degree to which new immigrants [in Britain] rely on benefits and council housing has been revealed by a survey that looks at how much foreigners contribute to the economy.

The league tables have been compiled by the Left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research on behalf of Dispatches, to be shown on Channel 4 tonight. The figures come from the census and the quarterly Labour Force Survey.

Somalians rely heavily on benefits, according to the statistics - 80 per cent live in social housing and 39 per cent claim income support.

Nearly half of newly-arrived Turks - 49 per cent - rely on social housing, 52 per cent do not work and 21 per cent claim income support. However, 35 per cent are self-employed.

Excuse me, is there something I'm not getting here? Britons welcome people to their country, half of whom don't work and who are--I don't know a better way to put it--on the public tit?

I guess they're worried that the Somalis will get jobs as taxi drivers and refuse to transport blind people with dogs?

Then there's all the carry-on about the Palestinians--the EU is refusing to give them money, Israel won't give them money or electricity, and it's a humanitarian crisis. Why can't they get jobs, pay taxes, and support themselves? Who gives us money? No-one. Yet the United States has managed to stagger along for 213 years on the earnings of its own people. Even with the burden of Congress on our shoulders.

I'm really curious. When did it become okay to subsist on other people's money for generations, and to yell like a wounded steer when the others don't want to pay?
Does the world owe everyone a living?

Well, I'm a little old geezerette, and if anyone deserves to be supported by other folks, it's me. Forward checks or credit card payments to my Paypal account.

I eagerly await your response.

I'm reading Michael Barone's new book

it's called the Glorious Revolution.

I know nothing about English history between the two Queen Elizabeths, so it was all new to me. But I like to know what the main characters looked like.

Imagine my surprise and dismay when I went searching for illustrations. There weren't any.




The above is Charles II, the Merry Monarch. He had 14 illegitimate children, give or take a few. Does he or doesn't he look like a guy who knows how to woo the ladies? How about those dainty ankles?




His brother, who eventually succeeded him as James II, also no slouch.

When James' first wife died, he sent emissaries to scout for another wife with the right connections. He insisted on a beautiful women, although Charles advised him that you could get used to any face in a week.

Prince Harry is not allowed to go out and play with the other boys...

he might get hurt.

Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier and afeared?

Yep.

What has happened to British pluck? First the 15 sailors and marines who were captured by Iran, and now this! If Prince Harry is to be in uniform, why can't he risk his life just like his mates? Is one soldier worth more than another?

Harry ought to resign his commission and be a useless twit like his father.