Two Things

1 — The entire Left has come to the decision that “The future of the United States is MAGA now”.

No shit, fuckwits.  Lest we forget, the acronym stands for:  Make America Great Again.  I know you assholes tried to turn it into an epithet or insult, but you failed — as a recent election may have showed you.  Most citizens want America to be great again;  why do you not?

2 — Still to the Left:  yeah, it was during an election campaign and rhetoric tends to heat up when that’s happening.  But the election is over and sanity has returned — or should have, anyway.

But just an FYI:  the “garbage” schtick is well past its sell-by date;  so if any of you assholes refer to me by that epithet from this point, I’m going to punch you right in the fucking face.

I hope I’ve made myself clear.

Added Snoopery?

I started reading this article in the DM  more for entertainment value than any other reason:

I do not have a TV license as I only watch Netflix and Amazon. However, I’ve heard I will now need to buy a license. Is this true?

I know, I know:  the premise of the question is puzzling to my Murkin Readers, in that the very concept of a “TV license” is unfamiliar not to say abhorrent.  But leaving that aside for the moment, I found my amusement turning into something else altogether as I started reading the answer:

The general rule is that under UK law you need to have a current TV license if you, or anyone within your house, flat or premises, watches live television on any channel or service, record television programs as they are being broadcast live or watch anything on BBC iPlayer.

So when you tune in to watch ‘on demand’ television, such as Netflix, Amazon and other similar streaming services, no TV license is needed.

This is because here you are not watching ‘live’ programs – i.e. shows that are being broadcast when you watch or record them but, instead, choosing from a catalogue of options.

So far. so good (well no, not at all good, but whatever).  Here’s where I started to feel a familiar itch in the old trigger finger:

What you have heard about relates to Netflix, the US streaming giant which has 17.1 million UK subscribers and has launched a new service where it broadcasts ‘live’ events – for example the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match being broadcast on Friday.

This is therefore ‘live’ television, meaning if you watch this, or any other Netflix live event, as it is broadcast, or even if you record it to watch later, you fall squarely into the territory of needing a TV license.

To clarify, you can continue to watch Netflix without a TV license if you chose not to watch the live events.

Which begs  raises the question:  how EXACTLY does the BBC licensing Stasi know whether you’re watching a movie or a live show?

It seems quite a simple deduction that that the answer is twofold:  either Netflix is sharing the viewing choices of the subscribers with the BBC, or the BBC is able somehow to monitor the channel feed, whether terrestrial or wireless.  Either answer is fucking terrible.

I should point out that the only way the BBC can enforce this ridiculous license fee nonsense is because Brits are largely disarmed.  If some Lizenzinspektor  came to the average Texan’s door and started with the strong-arm bullshit, there’d soon be murders.

And just so we know what this is all about:

The standard TV licence now costs £169.50 per year.  If you are required to have a license but fail to buy one, you risk being fined up to £1,000, plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay. 

Let’s hear it for the Surveillance Society.

Let’s Hear It For The Pollsters

I think this little debacle — initially seen in 2016 with Trump’s first electoral victory — can be summed up thus:

So much for them, then:  they were as clueless as all their US counterparts, all of whom called the election as “close” when (barring vote fraud) it was never going to be anything like that.

I know, I know:  everyone tries to hedge their bets in the prediction game, but never so egregiously.  It was obvious to any disinterested observer that they were cooking the  stats by slanted sampling and so on.

One would think that the pollsters would have learned their lesson from 2016, but noooo.

What I want to know is:  why should we believe anything these assholes tell us from now on?

Anyone?  Bueller?

Over Till Next Year

Thank goodness that Halloween is over and we can go back to a streaming movie schedule which doesn’t feature wall-to-wall horror movies, nor be greeted by foul Halloween decorations at every turn.

Of the loathsome pumpkins, we will not speak.

Also — and I must issue a stern Puke Alert here — we are also spared the appearances of celebrities and harlots (considerable overlap) in “fancy dress” costumes, an example of which can be found below the fold:

Read more