UK Conservative Government Wants Tougher Internet Rules than North Korea. No, Really…

Pyongyang, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF: This 25 April 2007 picture, released from Korean Central News Agency 26 April, shows North Korean soldiers, carrying a large portrait of late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, marching during a grand military parade to celebrate the 75th founding anniversary of the KPA at …
KCNA/AFP/Getty

“We need stricter internet regulation — the strictest in the world!” said no normal person in Britain ever.

Yet this, by the looks of it, is what we’re about to have dumped on us by Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright, with the enthusiastic support of Home Secretary Sajid Javid.

Note that weasel use of the word “safest”. “Safest” for whom, exactly? And “safest” from what threat?

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Brexit Might Actually Win This Referendum. Here’s Why…

I’m reluctant to talk about it because I don’t want to jinx it. As I was saying to Toby Young on our podcast the other day, it feels as deliciously unlikely as going to a bar and accidentally picking up a supermodel. There she is laughing at your jokes, playing footsie with you under the table and you’re thinking: “Bloody hell! This is unreal! In just a few hours from now I could be romping naked with this vision of outrageous loveliness.” But you also know that if the Fates catch you being too cocky they’ll punish you for your hubris and do something awful, like revealing that the person you’ve actually pulled is Bruce Jenner.

Problem is, as a professional journalist, it is rather my duty to report the facts as I see them. And the facts as I see them seem to be pointing tantalisingly towards rampant sex with that supermodel. Possibly not just with one but with several, every day for the rest of our lives.

Yes, it’s still improbable – at least so far as the bookies are concerned. But whenever I nurture any doubts, all I have to do is open a newspaper or turn on the TV and see for myself just how incredibly badly the Remain campaign is screwing this one up and how well the Leave team are winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided.

What strikes me most is the difference in mood and tone: Remain sound shrill, petulant, pessimistic; Leave come across as amiable, reasonable, optimistic. And which of those sides would any open-minded person prefer to be on?

Consider last night’s referendum debate on ITV.

It pitched – for the Remain camp – SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon; Labour Shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle; Tory Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd against – for Leave – Labour MP Gisela Stuart; Tory MP (and Rudd’s junior minister in her Climate Change department) Andrea Leadsom; and a token blond male former Mayor of London called Boris Johnson.

The Leave team were plausible, dignified, positive, level-headed. Stuart – a German speaking with soft persuasiveness for British values and sovereignty: yay! – may well be the most effective weapon in Leave’s armoury; Leadsom marked herself with her eloquence and passion as a potential future Tory prime minister; Johnson reined in his flamboyance, played it straight and gallantly left the ladies to steal the limelight.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Toby, Mate, It’s Not Often These Days We Disagree But…

March 1, 2013

But I think you’ll be Lord Young before I’m Lord Delingpole

There is barely a cigarette paper’s difference between my own and Toby Young’s opinion on most – if not all – political and social issues. I like and admire him hugely. But where he and I differ is in our interest in the political process: he finds it fascinating, I don’t. So while he has been following the Eastleigh by election assiduously, I really haven’t. I’m not interested in the politics, I’m not interested in the personalities. This is because like many classical liberals of a certain bent, I happen to think politics is the problem. The petty backbiting, the jockeying for power, the horse-trading, the sordid alliances of convenience, the factions, the malleable principles, the moral cowardice, the favoured interests – not that I’m accusing any of the candidates of any of this, I just mean the way politics runs generally – it all rather repels me.

I guess I’m just not as politically sophisticated as Toby. I’m glad he worked out all the psephological impacts depending on where conflicted Tory/UKIPers should place their vote because I certainly wasn’t going to.

That’s because the only thing that interests me in politics is ideas: the implementation of good ones and the rejection of bad ones. Some people would call this “ideology”, like this was a bad thing. I don’t know why it should be.

Anyway, it seems to me that these are not ordinary times. And that maybe under current circumstances it’s a mistake to get too sophisticated about the political process. Maybe it’s time instead that we voted simply for the party whose policies most closely resemble what we believe in ourselves. How else are we to send a trigger to the political class about what it is we really want, if we keep having to be shy about asking for it on dubious tactical grounds which we despise ourselves for having to adopt?

There’s only one party right now which is sticking up for all the things I believe in.

That’s why, for me, tomorrow’s vote has got to be a no-brainer.

UKIP

Related posts:

  1. If I could go back in time to my Oxford days, I’d warn myself against idolising Cameron
  2. I need YOUR pledge NOW for the most important campaign in the history of the planet!
  3. General Election 2010: My mate Dave…
  4. ‘War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength’ claims Osborne

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Delingpole: Not Just for the Nasty Things in Life

Clubbing and drugging

Eddy Temple Morris. I am not worthy

To listen to some of the people on Twitter you’d think all I ever did in life is go round being evil, abusing hamsters, stealing rusks from toddlers, hampering the noble work of the selfless scientists trying to save the planet from global warming, etc.

But actually I do find time for other stuff, you know. For example, I happen to have been blessed with really excellent taste in music and as part of my outreach work to the community I regularly recommend albums which may have skipped most punters’ notice in order to bring joy and good after-dinner sounds into their otherwise squalid, miserable and thankless lives. (Still really recommend the John Grant Queen of Denmark album, btw. That would be the topmost of my top tips from the last couple of years).

What I’m not, though, I’m afraid, is down with the kids. The last cultish yoof genre I really got into was drum n bass – and that was well over ten years ago. Problem is if you’re not going clubbing or taking the right drugs, you’re never going to keep up. (Simon Napier Bell has a fascinating theory on this in his seminal Black Vinyl White Powder: he says the most important people in the development of pop culture are gay men because, having a clubbing and drugging career so much more extended than heteros who tend to get married, have children and turn staid, is that they keep the old traditions alive while easing the transition into the new ones).

For example, if you listen to the thing I’m about to recommend you realise I’m hopelessly not up to speed on dubstep. A man who is, though, is one of my best old schoolfriends Eddy Temple Morris who has ended up as one of Britain’s most successful DJs, with a long-running show on XFM (remixes and mash-ups are his speciality), residencies in Ibiza, the works.

He’s also one of the nicest men you could possibly hope to meet, so I was fascinated to discover a few years ago when I was grumbling about the flak I get (and that was in the old days when I got way, way less than I do now) and he said to me: “You’re kidding aren’t you? If people hate you it means you’ve arrived.”

Eddy is massively talented. Anyone, I think, who has ever seen one of his live sets will know exactly what I mean. (When I’m 50 I definitely want him playing at my birthday party). Yet it turns out that amount of hate he still gets is tremendous. “Look you’ve got to realise, it’s not necessarily about you. It’s about them. If you’re in the public eye people want a pop at you because they’re kind of upset that you’re there and they’re not.” Eddy’s policy is generally to be nice to these people and empathise with their pain. It’s not mine but then, I’m not as nice as Eddy.

Anyhoo, the trolls will all now be thinking this is some kind of personal therapy session about the perils of minor celebrity, but it’s not. All I was really trying to do was cobble a few interesting words together just so I could promote this.

It’s a podcast Eddy and I have done together for Ricochet – the latest episode of my ongoing series Radio Free Delingpole. Usually my podcasts are about US politics (I recommend the recent ones I did with Toby Young and Douglas Murray), but this one is totally about music. You will hear me discovering that my tastes aren’t nearly as cool as I thought they were (though Eddy lets me down very gently), as well as learning what Moombahton is and who Skrillex is. (I really REALLY like Skrillex.)

Related posts:

  1. Life’s too short to be nice to Lefties
  2. Four Tet, Owl City, Hot Chip
  3. My incredible Big-Oil-funded life
  4. Life’s a Bowl of Toenails

3 thoughts on “Delingpole: not just for the nasty things in life”

  1. G Teal says:5th February 2012 at 12:20 pmThank you for injecting some common sense into the climate change fiasco.
  2. Graham Teal says:5th February 2012 at 12:22 pmthank you for injecting some common sense into the climate change hysteria.
  3. Cuffeee says:6th February 2012 at 6:58 pm“But actually I do find time for other stuff, you know.”What? You find other animals to abuse apart from hamsters?

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Japan: Whatever Happened to the Nuclear Meltdown?

Godzilla: where the hell is he?

Godzilla: where the hell is he?

Amazing, isn’t it, what a little light military intervention can do to a nuclear crisis?

One minute, the world is facing nuclear meltdown armageddon to rank with ooh, Three Mile Island at the very least, and quite possibly Chernobyl. A few (shockingly expensive) missile strikes over Benghazi and Tripoli later, though, and the Japanese nuclear crisis has all but vanished from the face of the earth.

Maybe we should start small wars more often. Or maybe even better the MSM could learn to start reporting on nuclear incidents like journalists instead of activists from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

I’m with Lewis Page on this one. In the Register, he writes:

As one who earns his living in the media these days, I can only apologise on behalf of my profession for the unbelievable levels of fear and misinformation purveyed this week. I have never been so ashamed to call myself a journalist.

Page puts the Fukushima incident in its proper perspective:

The Fukushima reactors actually came through the quake with flying colours despite the fact that it was five times stronger than they had been built to withstand. Only with the following tsunami – again, bigger than the design allowed for – did problems develop, and these problems seem likely to end in insignificant consequences. The Nos 1, 2 and 3 reactors at Daiichi may never produce power again – though this is not certain – but the likelihood is that Nos 4, 5 and 6 will return to service behind a bigger tsunami barrier.

The lesson to learn here is that if your country is hit by a monster earthquake and tsunami, one of the safest places to be is at the local nuclear powerplant. Other Japanese nuclear powerplants in the quake-stricken area, in fact, are sheltering homeless refugees in their buildings – which are some of the few in the region left standing at all, let alone with heating, water and other amenities.

Nothing else in the quake-stricken area has come through anything like as well as the nuclear power stations, or with so little harm to the population. All other forms of infrastructure – transport, housing, industries – have failed the people in and around them comprehensively, leading to deaths most probably in the tens of thousands. Fires, explosions and tank/pipeline ruptures all across the region will have done incalculably more environmental damage, distributed hugely greater amounts of carcinogens than Fukushima Daiichi – which has so far emitted almost nothing but radioactive steam (which becomes non-radioactive within minutes of being generated).

And yet nobody will say after this: “don’t build roads; don’t build towns; don’t build ships or chemical plants or oil refineries or railways”. That would be ridiculous, of course, even though having all those things has actually led to terrible loss of life, destruction and pollution in the quake’s wake.

But far and away more ridiculously, a lot of people are already saying that Fukushima with its probable zero consequences means that no new nuclear powerplants should ever be built again.

One of those ridiculous people is inevitably the noisome Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. In true Rahm Emanuel style he is using the perceived crisis as an excuse to push forward his anti-nuclear, eco-loon agenda. He claims:

“We can do the 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables.”

If implemented this will most assuredly cause brown-outs and tremendous economic damage by the time the energy gap begins to widen in 2020. But since Huhne will no longer be in office then and since he is wealthy enough not to have to face the consequences of his political stupidity this is unlikely to bother him.

Another of those people is the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, who could be heard on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions grandstanding about his  opposition to nuclear and being given a free pass by Jonathan Dimbleby to spout his spurious eco-propaganda as if it were actually true. At one point, he actually claimed that wind farms did not cause noise disturbance. (Maybe, Sir Jonathan, I should give you the phone number of the poor Welsh chap who has been advised that he should now sleep with his windows shut at night to cut out the noise of the wind farm which has destroyed the value of his property and ruined his retirement).

One of the main objections raised about nuclear power is how incredibly expensive it is. There’s a reason for this: thanks to forty years of hysterical, dishonest propaganda from “Atomkraft Nein Danke” eco-activists like Porritt and Huhne, the bar for safety has been set to such impossibly high standards that it cannot compete economically with less heavily regulated industries such as oil, coal, gas or indeed wind. I was pleased to hear Toby Young on Any Questions reiterating my point about the safety records of the nuclear and wind industries:

Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis.

And entirely unsurprised when the Hon Sir Jonathan Porritt, having pompously thanked Toby for raising the safety issue, chose to ignore the inconvenient truth of these statistics.

Let’s leave last word to this German astronomer and physicist, Dr Peter Heller, who has written a moving essay on how the scientific truth on nuclear power has been warped by political activism. (Hmm. Reminds me of another area of “science” which has been similarly distorted by scientists, politicians and activists with an agenda. Can anyone jog my memory?) (H/T Roddy Campbell)

So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.

The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.

Read the full essay at Watts Up With That? It’s a blinder.

Related posts:

  1. Nuclear power – some perspective
  2. What really happened on BBC Any Questions
  3. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard
  4. Greenpeace goes postal

4 thoughts on “Japan: whatever happened to the nuclear meltdown?”

  1. Nige Cook says:23rd March 2011 at 8:29 am

    Let’s leave last word to this German astronomer and physicist, German astronomer and physicist, Dr Peter Heller, who has written a moving essay on how the scientific truth on nuclear power has been warped by political activism. …

    “So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.”

    Deja vu. This groupthink episode has sadly happened before, namely after German defeat in WWI when their physics mainstream went bananas, as Paul Forman’s paper explains: “Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory: adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile environment,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol 3 (1071), pp 1-115.

    The Weimar culture from 1918-33 in Germany was a sellout of rationality and causality due to their alleged failure in WWI. This led to widespread applause for Heisenberg’s 1st quantization Uncertainty Principle of 1925, which assumes intrinsic indeterminancy exists in the universe, without a mechanism. (From 1927 Dirac and other proponents of 2nd quantization disproved this and showed that indeterminancy results from particulate or quantum force fields, like Brownian motion of pollen being due to a sum-over-histories of discrete individual air molecule impacts on the pollen grain.) Heisenberg’s 1920s neo-Nazis fellow travellers wanted the Uncertainty Principle because it seemed to say that German defeat in 1918 was due to a random wavefunction collapse with no cause, and that Germany won the war in a parallel universe.

    Adolf Hitler then rewarded Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle 1st quantization theory by making Heisenberg head of nuclear research in the Third Reich. You know the story. Heisenberg knew nothing about real science, so he failed the make a nuclear bomb. The detail he got wrong was simply not knowing that boron electrodes were used in producing graphite, and that boron (a neutron absorber) contaminated the graphite and make it useless. America simply changed electrodes and used pure graphite for their reactor moderators, producing plutonium. Heisenberg rejected graphite altogether and switched moderators, choosing heavy water from a Norway plant, soon blown up by commandos.

    Exactly the same thing has occurred after the second German defeat in 1945. Instead of screwing up the future of theoretical physics by changing the pursuit of mechanistic models into the pursuit of mathematical obfuscation, this time the German fascists chose to back the USSR by trying to get the West into nuclear disarmament, so the USSR would achieve world domination. To do this, they lied this time about nuclear radiation dangers.

    For a good technical debunking of low-level radiation media hype scare-mongering (such as that from Dr Ernest Sternglass), please see: http://www.broadinstitute.org/~ilya/alexander_shlyakhter/92h_radiation_risk_leukemia_cancer.pdf

  2. James Delingpole says:23rd March 2011 at 8:39 amI do enjoy your posts Nigel. They’re better than my blog.
  3. Nige Cook says:24th March 2011 at 9:17 pmThanks for the witty sarcasm, James.
  4. John D says:27th March 2011 at 4:55 amJames and Nige, what a great sycophantic double act.

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations