News Roundup

So let’s look at some (mostly) non-fake news.


...just exposing another one of her many lies — the bitch has always been of the “no borders” persuasion.  Also see:


...just doing her best to keep up with her VP’s record of lies about his background.
#LikeJohnFuckfaceKerry

In Business News:


...this would have sounded so much better if IBM were moving all their R&D back to the United States, but IBM ceased to be an actual American company way back in the 1990s.

And would it be a week without some We’re All Gonna DIIIEEEE! news?


...quick, impose a lockdown!
#NazzoFastGuido

Some Sports News:


that’s because he may be a professional racer, but he’s clearly an amateur drinker.

In Military News:


...nothing about the Army has looked good since Desert Storm ended and DEI/LGBTOSHTFU was installed.
#HangMarkMilley

This just in from The Great Cultural Assimilation Project©:


...it’s “California-In-The-Rockies”;  what else did you expect?


...wait:  the FBI did some actual law enforcement?
#SarahsShockedFace

And in the continuous fake news a.k.a. Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©:


In the Commercial News Dept.:


...sorry, sweetie;  I know you’re just doing it for the $$$, but no way no how no chance not ever will I buy anything from that bunch of San Francisco anti-gun Commie assholes.

And speaking of giant dicks, we have in Medical News:


...one of the perils of your wife being gluten-intolerant?  Keyword:  Lebanon.

And after that snippet, the usual collection of 

  ...lemme guess: “Forgive and forget”?

...people who have no lives of their own.


...nope, I have no idea who she is either, but that’s never stopped me before:

And that’s the rear end of the news.

No Room For Screwups

…and by “room” I mean space, or area, not a room inside a building.

The first problem with Britishland is that it’s tiny — I mean, the entire United Kingdom can pretty much fit inside Oregon.  The other problem is that (outside the cities) British countryside is unspeakably gorgeous. The third problem is that when (say) a political party screws up, the effect on the population as a whole can be nigh-catastrophic.

Here in Murka, by way of contrast, you can build a 2,500-acre solar- or wind farm with 600-ft turbines in, say, West Texas or anywhere in Nebraska and the chances are that unless you put it next to an interstate or similar, nobody’s even going to know it’s there.  So when the solar panels are destroyed by a lightning strike or the wind turbines get blown over, it’s the proverbial tree falling over in a forest — nobody notices.

The problem is that in Britishland, 2,500 acres is a big deal, and anything you build there (e.g. those 600-ft turbines) will not only be visible, but the chances are that they will, in the words of Jeremy Clarkson’s county planning commission, spoil an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  And still on Clarkson’s farm, remember how the local council gives him a hard time on his farm of only 1,000 acres — less than half of one of those solar/wind farms as mentioned above.  How much more trouble would said councils kick up over so large an intrusion?

Well, not much, as it turns out.  Why?

The new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero didn’t waste any time in announcing his approval of a solar farm on the Cambridgeshire and Suffolk border covering 1,000 hectares or nearly 2,500 acres. This £600million development, Miliband said, was ‘crucial to achieving Net Zero’ and would provide ‘an abundant source of cleaner, cheaper energy on the mission towards 2030’. This is just one project out of many across the farmland and moors of Britain.

Miliband is also planning the imposition of wind turbines up to 200 metres (656ft) in height, again ignoring the wishes of local residents and their potential harm to the countryside. For example, there are plans to site 65 turbines of 200 metres on 2,300 hectares of Walshaw Moor, in Calderdale, West Yorkshire. Campaigners against the scheme believe it will be damaging to bird life, such as skylarks and curlews, and increase the risk of flooding. Up to 10,000 tons of concrete will be needed to support these turbines at their base, together with quarried material for 22 miles of access roads. The unsightly structures will be visible for miles in a beloved part of the country. These developments include the construction of a network of transmission pylons across the countryside.

Not to be outdone by Ed Miliband, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has decided that part of the green belt should be relabelled grey to help build a target of 1.5million homes in five years. And while Rayner thinks some green belt land is ugly, she has dropped the need for aesthetically pleasing buildings. She protests that she isn’t going to build unsightly houses yet she is dismissive of the concept of beauty, commenting that ‘beautiful’ means nothing really, but ‘one thing to one person and another thing to another’.

Remember that of all the terminally-destroyed habitats in the world (e.g. the Aral Sea in the former U.S.S.R.), pretty much all of them are to be found in socialist- or formerly-socialist countries.

Nothing, it appears, gives a Stalinist (e.g. the aforementioned Rayner) greater pleasure than to screw up the environment — whether it’s to fulfill the latest Glorious Five-Year Plan or, as above, Net Zero (a nominally eco-sensitive initiative).  After all, as Rayner admits, beauty is just a bourgeois concept, after all.

I am amazed that the average British voter cannot see (or refuses to see) that all the great socialist dreams are never actually in pursuit of their stated goals (improve the lot of the peasants/proletariat, or “save” the environment), but are rather simply a nostrum for oppressing and controlling people’s lives.  But whatever, the Brits voted these foul Stalinists into power, and now they’re going to reap the whirlwind of the consequences.

Ordinarily in a situation like this, I’d just ask Pontius to hand over the basin;  but the fact is that I’m truly saddened by what’s going to happen to one of the most beautiful countrysides on Earth, a countryside that I’ve visited often and love — love a lot more than the British governing class, to start off with.

Rank Stupidity

Via the Daily Express, I see that IMDB has just ranked its Top 10 British WWII movies, and to say I disagree with some of their choices would be putting it mildly.

The definition of a “British” war movie is that it needs to involve principally Britain and Britons, in and around Britain or in a British-only environment.  This would exclude movies like The Longest Day, Where Eagles Dare (a junk movie anyway), and even A Bridge Too Far (which is not junk). Also, movies about war are not really the some as war movies (which feature soldiers, battles and killing and stuff) although there can be some killing on the Home Front, so to speak.  So I’ve divided them into two lists, and here they are:

Kim’s Top 10 Actual British War Movies:

  1. Bridge Over The River Kwai
  2. Battle of Britain
  3. 633 Squadron
  4. The Hill
  5. The Long Day’s Dying
  6. In Which We Serve
  7. The Cruel Sea
  8. The Dam Busters
  9. Ice Cold in Alex
  10. Dunkirk*

*Included because of its subject matter, and was so good a production that not even director Christopher Nolan could screw it up.  I haven’t seen the 1959 movie of the same name, but I’m going to.

Then we have the movies which were set in 1940s Britain, but contained no actual battlefield combat.

Kim’s Top 10 British Movies about WWII:

  1. Hope & Glory
  2. The Imitation Game
  3. Darkest Hour
  4. Mrs. Miniver
  5. A Matter of Life and Death
  6. Eye Of The Needle
  7. The Gentle Sex
  8. Went The Day Well? / The Eagle Has Landed*
  9. Island At War (TV series)
  10. Foyle’s War (TV series)
  11. (Honorable Mention:  Yanks )

*Essentially the same story;  German paratroopers land in an isolated English village and take it over.  But Went The Day  is the more realistic.

Printed Matter

A parallel thought occurred to me as I was putting together the above post (Rank Stupidity):  what about some decent books about WWII Britain?

Of course, there are thousands upon thousands of them, but what follows are two (unranked) lists of the ones I’ve read.  I’ve mostly ignored the general history books (Churchill’s The Second World War, etc.) to concentrate on novels and biographies.

Let me start with the ones that spawned various of the WWII movies mentioned above. (F) denotes fiction, otherwise historical.

  • Enemy Coast Ahead (The Dam Busters) — Guy Gibson V.C.
  • The Eagle Has Landed — Jack Higgins (F)
  • Eye Of The Needle — Jack Higgins (F)
  • The Hill — Leonard B. Scott (F)
  • The Cruel Sea — Nicholas Monsarrat (F) might be the best naval story ever told.

Then there are others that mostly haven’t been made into movies (yet):

  • Bomber — Len Deighton (F)
  • The entire RAF series (e.g. Piece of Cake, Damn Good Show, etc.) — Derek Robinson (F)
  • The Colditz Story — P.R. Reid (the movie wasn’t that good, hence its exclusion from the top 10 movie list)
  • HMS Ulysses — Alistair Maclean (F)
  • Reach For The Sky — Paul Brickhill (Douglas Bader biography)
  • Cheshire V.C. — Paul Brickhill (about the man who succeeded Gibson at 617 Squadron)
  • The Tunnel — Eric Williams
  • The Sword Of Honour trilogy — Evelyn Waugh (F)
  • Citizens Of London — Lynn Olson

That’s a partial list, of course.  But it says something of all of them — some of which I haven’t read in over thirty years — that I remember them to this day.

Proof Of Association

After wading through all sorts of stuff explaining the concept of “the power of association”, Scott Pinsker says the following:

By joining the MAGA train, RFK Jr. is helping Trump craft a narrative where The Donald is open-minded and forgiving of his former rivals. It shows he’s capable of attracting independents, moderates, liberals, practically anyone — hell, even a Kennedy joined Trump!

Yeah.  I’ll believe that about Trump when he offers Ron DeSantis a Cabinet position — and I mean a serious post like State or Commerce.

The biggest mistake Trump made — in both election campaigns — was his dismissive attitude towards the best state governor in the United States.  Regardless of his personal feelings, though, there’s no denying that in his own state, DeSantis has achieved more MAGA-type reform than anyone else.  Perhaps more even than Trump himself at the national level.

And by leaving DeSantis out of his future Administration plans, Trump will be doing the country, and himself, a grave disservice.

Trump is good for only four more years;  DeSantis will be good for more than a decade after that, if not longer.