About Me

Name:Greg England
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

I know just how he feels

Posted by Greg England on Friday, May 16, 2008 6:19:14 PM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The drive-bys always get it wrong - Part Two

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:03:49 PM
In today's Daily Telegraph I discover the following headline.
 
Starbucks is facing a boycott from a group of Christian activists in America
who claim the coffee chain's new logo is vulgar.
 
But wait ... it's the drive-by media remember.  Further investigation is required.
 
Internet search reveals the following link:
 
And finally, a link to the "Christian" website which quite frankly scares the hell out of me:
http: // www . the res ista nce man ifes to . com /
 
(I have put spaces in the domain name, to prevent it becoming a link. 
You can visit it if you want ...  but I wish I hadn't clicked on it).
 
This has nothing to do with mainstream Christianity (the group only has 3000 people in it!!!)
 
However, if you haven't done the internet research, all you will remember from this Telegraph story is that some Christians in America are protesting about the boobies on cups of Starbucks.  Must be Dubya's fault.  Those crazy Christian fundies!
 
Click on the Huffington Post link, and you will find the usual suspects banging on about the Christian right.
 
There's hope though, because even some of the bloggers on the Huffington post have seen through the ruse, and have complained about this misrepresentation.
 
Thank God for that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The drive-bys always get it wrong - Part One

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:37:46 PM
The UKs Daily Telegraph wrote an article entitled:
 
"Mark your wives: The 1930s marriage test"
 
The article states that "American psychologists have unearthed a 'marital rating scale' used by marriage counsellors in 1939 to assess the performance of wives - and the categories make interesting reading for modern couples brought up to believe in the equality of the sexes"
 
It then contains an embedded image, which is a set of questions that a husband is supposed to use to mark his wife.  The questions are typical of the time e.g. "a good hostess - even to unexpected guests" or "has meals on time"
 
However, the article is a misrepresentation of the truth ... a half-truth.
You see, buried deep within the article is the phrase "The test was designed to be answered either by husbands or their wives themselves ..."  One of the commenters on the blog, posted links to the questions that the husbands are supposed to answer:
 
These include questions like:
 
"Helps wife with dishes, caring for children, scrubbing"
"Leaves car for wife on days she may need it"
 
This is disgraceful.
The Daily Telegraph wrote this article in an attempt to portray the 1930s as a dark age, full of male chauvinist pigs.  But when you read the questions that the men have to answer, you come away with the impression that 1930s marriage counsellors viewed marriage as a partnership between men and women. 

In other words, the article is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.  But it gets worse.  Much worse.
One of the commenters on the site, complained about the Telegraph only publishing the "the wife's chart and not the husbands" stating that "not much progress has been made in attitudes to women!"
 
So let's get this straight.
A respected UK conservative broadsheet newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, writes a misleading article designed to manipulate the reader into an anti-male viewpoint, and one of the women who read the article thought that the Daily Telegraph was being sexist against women.
 
What hope do we have when liberals get it so utterly, utterly wrong?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conspiracy

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:53:30 PM
I am not specifically targetting the Daily Telegraph, but even this right-wing UK journal is falling for liberal lies.
 
You can find me on these blogs, trying to correct matters:
 
Here's Rush clarifying matters in his inimitable style:
Now I don't care whether you agree with Ann Coulter's opinions or Rush Limbaugh's opinions.
They are ultra-conservative, so I don't expect everyone to agree with them.
In that case, I respect you if you provide an alternative analysis and set of opinions.
 
But that's not what the mainstream media does.  The mainstream media consistently gets it wrong.
I don't believe that this is incompetence.  I believe that it is deliberate.

It is objective proof that there is a conspiracy to misrepresent Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
 
Because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh provide clarity wrt. a large range of issues, including international affairs and foreign policy.  And there are plenty of vested interests out there ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Open letter to Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:39:15 PM

---- BEGIN TRANSMISSION ----

To:  Rush Limbaugh, C-in-C USOC
From:  Greg England, UK Observer
Time:  2008-03-05 16:30Z
Subject:  Operation Chaos - International Objectives
Classification:   <EAT BEFORE READING>

BACKGROUND
==========
Ever since the Democrats infiltrated the GOP primaries and helped to elect a RINO candidate, el-Rushbo has been leading a counter-attack called Operation Chaos.
 
Operation Chaos has Republican voters crossing over to the Democrat primaries in order to strengthen Hillary's position.  This provides the Clinton team with the opportunity to attack Obama politically.

The primary objectives are to prolong the Democrat Uncivil War, and hence weaken both candidates so that the GOP can win in November.

LATEST INTELLIGENCE REPORT
==========================
A recent reconnaisance operation has uncovered an international informal movement of Obama supporters:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/beerforbarack/CjQs
 
This movement consists of foreign nationals and US ex-pats who have declared an interest in Obama's electoral victory.  The website clearly states that this is an 'Informal Movement' that is NOT affliated to official Obama campaign.
 
Given that there is an international movement in favour of an Obama victory, it begs the question as to whether the next phase of Operation Chaos will need to be fought on foreign soil.
 
---- END TRANSMISSION ----

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I am not a liberal - reason 13576B-354-234/A

Posted by Greg England on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:34:45 PM
I have just watched an excellent first part of a documentary by the BBC, entitled:

Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts
 
The basic premise is that six young westerners get to see how the other half live, by working in some Indian factories manufacturing clothes for a pittance.  They start off in a clean factory (working extremely hard) but then end up in miserable conditions, sleeping on the floor between jobs (etc.) 
 
Now I'm all for this.  It's good for young people to learn how the world works, and to learn to count their blessings.
 
But as this is the Beeb, here's the catch.
 
The website associated with the programme, is hosted on a website that deals in eco-fashion.  Clothes made out of hemp and bamboo, clothes made out of old garments, clothes made out of scraps of old clothes, shwopping parties where people exchange their cast offs ... necklaces made out of old magazines.
 
How exactly does all this liberal nonsense feed these poor people?
 
Furthermore ... given that the participants didn't even earn enough money to buy goods in the local Indian shop, just how far down the payscale were they by Indian standards?
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save the planet ... but screw you!

Posted by Greg England on Monday, April 21, 2008 12:17:17 AM
Environmentalists are always banging on about rising CO2 levels and associated rising sea levels.

"Millions of people will perish if we don't do something now" they say.
"Fine" I say, accepting their premise.  "Let's build lots of nuclear power stations"

The conversation draws to a close.
 
Why is that?  Surely, if your one big project is to save human life through reducing manmade CO2, you should be jumping for joy because the problem already has a solution:  Nuclear Power.  Yet the greens ignore this option, and instead make stupid suggestions that are designed to make my blood pressure rise:
  • Change your light bulbs
  • Take shorter showers
  • Take the bus to work
  • Build lots of windmills

I have heard some conservatives suggest that global warming is a scam, designed to validate failed liberal policies by introducing an artificial world wide crisis that can only be solved through direct government intervention.

Yet the truth is far, far more sinister than that.

By denying humanity the benefits of the technology that could secure all their future energy needs, environmentalists are disclosing their true agenda, which is:
 
'Save the planet ... but screw you!'
 
In their universe, they are happy to sacrifice the futures of millions of people on the anti-nuclear altar, because nothing matters more than pristine nature.  In fact it's already happening.  Rising oil prices.  Land that should be used for growing food crops, given over to useless biofuels.
 
But at least we are saving the planet (and we are creating an artificial population/food crisis in the process, to be 'solved' by a future generation of enviro-wackos).
 
Post blog note:
 
It would be like having a worldwide AIDS crisis, and having PETA step in at the last minute to prevent the use of a life saving vaccinne because it had been tested on animals.  Now I don't like vivisection any more than you do.  But here's a thought experiment for you, worthy of a future blog:

If you develop a cancer drug for dogs ... is it wrong to test it on animals?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Charity begins at home

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:56:50 PM
Today my mother walked into a charity shop, and spent the equivalent of $12.  The charity workers served her with gratitude and respect, and she left the shop with a spring in her step.
 
Well of course that didn't happen.

The charity workers treated her with contempt, because she dared to ask for a carrier bag large enough to put her purchases in.  Presumably they are under the impression that later on this evening my mother intends to swim out into the Atlantic ocean, and stuff the carrier bag into a passing dolphin's mouth.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nationalised Health care anyone?

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:01:41 PM
Get your head around this story:
 
Quote:
Laura Ashworth, 21, was prepared to become a "living donor" for her mother Rachel Leake, 39, who has kidney failure. But she died from an asthma attack before the transplant could happen.  As a signatory to the NHS Organ Donor Register, her kidneys and liver were given to three patients on the official UK Transplant waiting list two days after her death. 
 
A key ethical principle of the current "undirected deceased donation" system is that neither the donor nor their family can choose who receives their organ when they die. 

This applies even if an individual had expressed such a wish while alive by starting the process of becoming a living donor.

I agree that if you sign up to be an NHS organ donor, then it should be the NHS who decide who gets your donated organs on the basis of clinical need.  I also agree that unless you have made a formal request to decide who to donate your organs to (e.g. through a living will) then the NHS should decide who gets your donated organs on the basis of clinical need.

But if you have expressely wished that your organs are donated to a particular individual (e.g. a family member), then why on earth shouldn't your choice be honoured?
 
Here's what the libs say in response to this (also from the article):
"We do not want it to become the thin end of the wedge. For example if someone only wants to donate to a person of the same religion - where do you draw the line?"
Yet again we have liberals using demagogic arguments.  The arguments are cunningly logical, and we could spend all night discussing the management of the UK Transplant register.

But it's yet another liberal red herring.

We are not talking about a daughter wanting to donate her organs to Catholics.  We are talking about a daughter wanting to save the life of her mother.  But because of liberal ideology that cares about the collective (and crushes the individual) we end up in a situation where it is illegal to give someone a part of your body after death unless the government decides who benefits.
 
That's not medicine.  That's socialism.

Pro-abortion campaigners are always banging on about how it's their body, and their right to choose.
 
But in a national health system, your body belongs to the state ... even when you die.
 
 
Post blog note:
I have since discovered that the rules in at least one Florida hospital are somewhat different:
 
Quote:
Q. Can I specify who will get my organs and tissues?
A. Yes. You can leave your organs and tissues to specific people (if they meet medical criteria), but you may not leave organs and tissues to a specific race, creed, religion, etc.
Exactly.  If Americans can get the ethics right, why can't the UK.
 
This paragraph makes a mockery out of the reasons that UK NHS libs were giving for refusing to allow someone to donate to a specific individual.  Thin end of the wedge my ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Liberal Bubble

Posted by Greg England on Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:18:08 AM
 
I have drawn this picture to try to describe the all consuming nature of liberalism.
 
 
It is possible to blend a portfolio of ideas whilst remaining trapped in the liberal bubble.  Ironically, this means that most liberals pride themselves in being open-minded intellectuals.  But in the same way that the German Democratic Republic was anything but democratic, modern liberalism is not an objective open-minded mindset.
 
It is instead an all encompassing mindset ... a bit like upside-down land.
 
The tragedy is that liberals continue to intellectualise and embrace all the bad ideas.
Hence they continue to be wrong about almost everything.
 
Escaping from liberalism is like escaping from a cult.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And did those feet in ancient times ...

Posted by Greg England on Friday, April 11, 2008 5:35:48 PM
Cathedral bans popular hymn Jerusalem:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/10/njerusalem110.xml
 
I quote:
The verses, which were written by William Blake more than two centuries ago, cannot be sung by choirs or congregations at Southwark Cathedral because the words do not praise God and are too nationalistic, according to senior clergy.  Last week the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, advised guests at a private memorial service that the hymn would not be sung because it was "not in the glory of God".
 
I suspect that my transatlantic readers are wondering what all the fuss is about.  Well this isn't the first time that a Church of England bishop has asked for a hymn to be banned.
 
In 2004, the Bishop of Hulme called on churches to ban the singing of "I Vow to Thee My Country"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/12/nbish12.xml
 

In both cases, the churchmen were calling for hymns to be banned on the grounds that they were not Christian enough.  However, in both cases the churchmen are using theological masks to hide their true agendas.
 
Check their credentials on the internet:

Dean of Southwark
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/26/religion.uk
 
Bishop of Hulme (scroll to the bottom of the article)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7236174.stm

Once you find out where they are coming from, you realise that their criticisms of these two hymns have nothing to do with theology.  This is about CofE liberals attacking popular national symbols, in this case these two important unifying national hymns, and using demagogic means where necessary (e.g. by comparing patriotism to racist nationalism).
 
This is no less serious than the anti-Americanism of Obama's preacher, except that it is dressed up in gentle liberalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Green Card

Posted by Greg England on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:09:46 AM
15mph speed limit for eco towns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7311548.stm
 
Quote:
"Environmental protesters say the plans do not give adequate consideration to other ecological issues, such as the impact building would have on wildlife."
 

Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Western 'greed' in Easter sermon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/23/narchbishop123.xml
 
Quote:
In his Easter Sunday sermon, Dr Williams said the "comforts and luxuries" people took for granted could not be sustained forever and forecast that civilisation would one day collapse.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Try someone else's blog

Posted by Greg England on Monday, March 10, 2008 6:28:31 PM
Hi folks, if you are looking for a break from my monthly "rant-a-rooney" then why don't you try this blog:
 
 
The author of goodbyeblighty even had the good manners to reply to my email when I said that that I was going to recommend this blog to others.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where are those crazy Christian fundies when you need them?

Posted by Greg England on Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:56:01 AM

The National Secular Society criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent remarks, stating that "it was difficult to imagine a less helpful contribution to the debate on cohesion and social integration than this."

http://www.secularism.org.uk/archbishopscommentsonsharialawma.html

Fair enough, we are on the same page here.  However, rather criticise the Archbishop for his cowardice in the face of an increasingly aggressive Islamism (which would take all of our freedoms away, whether you are a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, atheist or even moderate Muslim) the NSS instead treats us to the "all religions are as bad as one another" speech:

"All religious groups preach that they are inclusive and work towards social integration in Britain, yet what they practise is exactly the opposite. They want, and get, segregated schools, segregated scout groups, even segregated toilets, and now apparently, social cohesion and integration are to be further achieved by separate laws for separate religious groups. This is truly bizarre.”

No, what is truly bizarre is your lack of a sense of irony and intellectual dishonesty.

Here we have the most liberal Archbishop of recent times:

 

A man who paraded about with druids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm

A man who opposes the War on Terror ... when the WoT meant Afghanistan!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2606971.stm

A man whose Christmas message was a gift to atheists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise120.xml

 

As for his views on homosexuality and priests ... do you know what they are?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1856222,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4445242.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/ngay27.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3054277.ece

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/527

 

Even the lefty newspaper the Guardian admits that “in many respects, Williams, not helped by his preachy beard and imperious eyebrows, has come to resemble the caricature of the C of E vicar: someone who has strong views on everything except God.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/10/anglicanism.religion

 

And now the latest debacle about sharia law.

You see, the problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT that he is advancing a fundy Christian religious agenda.  The problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he doesn't appear to stand for anything.  He may be an intelligent theologian.  He may even be a thoughtful and kindly man.

But truth be told ... he's just another lib.

For compensation, at least we have the delicious irony of listening to liberal organisations having to criticise the Archbishop of Canterbury for being ... erm, a liberal?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Words fail me

Posted by Greg England on Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:59:32 PM
Yet again, the Archbishop of Canterbury opens his mouth and makes matters worse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/nwilliams107.xml

If you are a devout Muslim, then that's fine by me.  But right now, I cannot articulate the depth of my anger towards this man.  For years he has been systematically undermining Christian traditions, using the pulpit to preach his wacky liberal views.  The Church of England has always had its lefties, but these were usually social reformers and anti-poverty campaigners.  But this man ...

Why doesn't he just join the National Secular Society and be done with it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »