This has to be a joke–right? Except it’s not April Fools.
The reason for this is supposedly food fraud, but this seems a bit absurd after the horsemeat scandal.
This has to be a joke–right? Except it’s not April Fools.
The reason for this is supposedly food fraud, but this seems a bit absurd after the horsemeat scandal.
I would never drink Carling Black Label (well,almost never), but this is one of my fav adverts of all time.
The Great British Public would spot the theme.
At 9.28pm on 16 May 1943, the first of 19 Lancaster heavy bombers lifted off the runway into a clear, still early summer night. This was the start of Operation
Chastise:the raids on the Dams in the German Ruhr Valley.
Using a specially developed bouncing bomb, the squadron managed to breach two dams in Germany. The attack caused widespread flooding, disrupting industry in the Ruhr valley and was viewed as a great success in Britain. The mission was a dangerous one,133 men set out but only 77 returned.
Alas, one of the code words is one which can no longer be named. A hint for those who didn’t see my previous post on this topic is that the code word was the name of Guy Gibson’s Black Labrador. Never mind that the dog in question’s grave is there for the public to see. Alas, the dog has been renamed in the up coming remake.
So, cue the original version of film and remember the flight crews of Operation Chastise.
It has come to my attention that BBC America material is available on demand from the Apple iTunes Store. I am assuming the same is true for Canada as well.
It’s nice to see a lot of this available on demand, such as Mongrels and Horrible Histories.
Not sure if any ITV or Channel 4 material is available (Time Team).
Despite naming this blog after my dog, I hardly ever mention her.
But I thought I would post this given the derogatory comments made about Chinese Cresteds. 
Where media define the “center” or the “middle” tells you a lot about the worldview they are promoting. The “center” doesn’t usually indicate where most of the public is, but rather where elites have determined an appropriate middle between opposing arguments. Confusing the two concepts is common (and not an accident).
The Article in question is about the economic advice from two of the most prominent economists who have worked at the highest levels of government and academia. On the other hand, this is a fairly telling comment as I have been seeing a lot of political terms being misused, such as “socialism” and “conservative”. The last term being the most thoroughly brutalised of all of them.
“Conservatism”, from the Latin: conservare–”to retain”, is defined as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity. According to the 2nd Viscount Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”
To me to be a “Conservative” one must be strongly for social order and institutions while not accepting change to that order without good reason.
Of course, the definition is used about has this caveat:
There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world – each upholding their respective traditions – may disagree on a wide range of issues.
I am of the opinion that the precedent set in the US by its use of force to obtain independence from Britain (a decidedly non-conservative act) has left its mark on US politics to bring about what I call the “reality challenged right”. Although, one could also add that other factors are also afoot to create the “reality challenged right”.
The main characteristic of this is the belief in the use of force in politics, which is not found in most civilised nations. In fact, that is probably the most obvious characteristic of this movement.
Another characteristic is being fact adverse, with the most frightening aspect being the failure to address climate change as news comes that the atmospheric level of a carbon dioxide has reached a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years. Scientists believe the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.
“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I have to admit that I find this movement quite frightening and am not sure how it could have been allowed to arise, but the fact that such a disastrous political faction could be given any level of credibility, let alone called “Conservative”, boggles my mind.
“I am an elitist, but I have a respect for people who don’t measure up.”
“Some of these people haven’t taken their medication.”