John Cleese adverts

Advertisements

Old, Middle and Modern English compared

The Simpsons “Dogtown” Thrashes Animal “Rights”

Green Jihad

The Simson’s episode Dogtown is a well needed ridiculing of the notion animals (in this case dogs) should have the same rights as humans. Homer is sued by an individual (rather than a dog) he hits with his car and then a jury decides during a lawsuit the victim brings against Homer that dogs are not only as good as humans but, in many ways, better.

Consequently, dogs are not only accorded the same rights as humans, they are given priority and the show’s canines then dominate Springfield. The results are a hilarious, but instructive, catastrophe. PETA is probably furious.

View original post

Israeli diplomat slams the Guardian for calling Hamas border protests “peaceful”.

Do Amnesty International and other Hamas fellow travelers believe burning tyres outside parliament house is a peaceful protest.

In an op-ed at the Jewish News published yesterday, Udi Avivi, Spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London, slammed the Guardian’s coverage of Palestinian riots along the Gaza border.

Some media outlets have curiously glossed over essential elements of this story. This was epitomised in a Guardian editorial published on 23 April that declared: ‘The jury is still out as to how long Hamas’s patronage will allow the protests to remain peaceful.’

Considering that rioters have deliberately and consistently initiated violence, the word ‘peaceful’ cannot possibly be used to describe events on the Israel-Gaza border.

When facts are ignored in favour of a fictitious narrative in which ‘brutal’ Israel is cowing the people of Gaza ‘into submission’, truth is sacrificed upon the altar of storytelling.

80% of the Gazans confirmed to have been killed in clashes have already been identified as activists within terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Palestinian…

View original post 44 more words

Finland Turns Against “Basic Income”

International Liberty

I’m conflicted.

I’ve repeatedly expressed skepticism about the idea of governments providing a “basic income” because I fear the work ethic will (further) erode if people automatically receive a substantial chunk of money.

Moreover, I also fear that a basic income will lead to an ever-expanding burden of government spending, particularly once net beneficiaries figure out they can vote themselves more money.

Given these concerns, I should be happy about this report from the New York Times.

For more than a year, Finland has been testing the proposition that the best way to lift economic fortunes may be the simplest: Hand out money without rules or restrictions on how people use it. The experiment with so-called universal basic income has captured global attention… Now, the experiment is ending. The Finnish government has opted not to continue financing it past this year, a reflection of public discomfort with the idea…

View original post 718 more words