Corruption in High Places


Lots of resignations today. Which is always a good thing.

There’s been the resignation of UN IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri, facing sexual harassment charges. More about Pachauri from Donna Laframboise.

And the resignation of ex-Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind  (but not yet ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw) from parliament in the Cash for Access scandal.

Sir Malcolm also described himself as “self-employed” and had to “earn my income” — despite being paid £67,000 by the taxpayer for his work as an MP. The disclosure that two of Britain’s most senior politicians are embroiled in a new “cash for access” scandal highlights Parliament’s failure to address the issue which has plagued British politics for a generation.

 Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Westminster standards watchdog, said it was “shocking” that two experienced MPs responded to the approaches in the way that they did.

He expressed concern that Sir Malcolm was “so willing to sell himself” with his “enormous range of contact lists”. He added that it was against the rules for Mr Straw to attempt to negotiate a business contract in his Commons office.

They’re not the only ones, of course. British MPs earned more than £7m outside of Parliament in 2014.

What’s to stop someone like Bloomberg buying politicians, in order to push through antismoking laws? Nothing that I can see. And £7 million would be peanuts to him.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we learn one day that this is exactly what happened. They were all bought.

And from a comment on Bishop Hill blog about the nutjobs in the UK parliament:

One gentleman, a once and future cabinet minister, was significantly more senior. He took the floor and told us that, upon election, the Cameron administration would fight global warming tooth and nail. If it were up to him, he said, Britain would become a zero-carbon society overnight. It was, he said, “a matter of the highest moral obligation”.

This made our ears prick up. One thing we’ve learned is that when people, especially politicians, start making decisions based on a reading of their moral compass, facts tend to be amongst the first casualties. We asked the minister what he meant by “moral obligation”.

“If it weren’t for England,” he continued, “the world wouldn’t be in the state it’s in. None of this would have happened.” He gestured upward and outward. The “this,” he implied, meant this room, this building, the city of London, all civilization.

We must have looked puzzled, for he explained further. England, he said, having started the Industrial Revolution, led the rest of the world down the path towards pollution, environmental degradation, and global warming. It was therefore England’s obligation to take the lead in undoing the damage.

And people like this become ministers?

Vaclav Klaus on Communism’s Comeback:

I expected to live in a much more free and democratic society and economy than is the case today.

It was caused partly by the victory of social democracy in our country and partly by the importing of the European economic system, with its overregulation, high taxation and redistribution, welfare state, and fascination with all kinds of anti-market measures, connected nowadays mostly with environmentalism, with its anti-democratic social ideology which successfully hides its real substance while pretending to care about nature, the environment and our Blue Planet. We may be oversensitive in this respect because of our long Communist experience but we see many similar phenomena, tendencies, ambitions and arguments around us today.

And finally, via ZeroHedge, Dr Pippa Malmgren, former member of the U.S. President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, talking refreshingly about… financial markets, the euro, QE, and more.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Corruption in High Places

  1. So the whole Bloody world is a victim…………….of what! Socialists and communists carefully camouflaged as capitalist wannabes.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    Now BBC is reporting that 2/3 of smokers will die prematurely based upon an Australian study. See “Tobacco ‘kills two in three smokers’,” BBC News, 24 February 2015,

    • smokervoter says:

      I don’t get it, what’s the point of putting this up? I couldn’t get past 1:30. And what’s up with the Majority Report name? Majority as in the Mob Rule of the Imperious Left, like in Kalifornia? The Koch Brothers are a fair and natural offset to George Soros/Michael Bloomberg/Warren Buffet and the Feelthy Nouveau Riche Majority of the precious Silicon Valley.

      Sam Seder is nothing but a pencil neck geek. Whatever his message was, he took waaayyy too long get the ball rolling. For now, the 1st world (and 2nd and 3rd for that matter) runs on fossil fuel and switching over is going to take a long time. In the mean time—just relax.

    • Anti-smoking experts paid by Big Pharma

      Posted on November 8, 2014 by Frank Davis

      Another article by Klaus K:

      November, 2014: Original Danish article Klaus K blog: Anti-ryge eksperter var betalt af Big Pharma

      ¤ Surgeon General editors received pharma money for decades

      ¤ Top experts must leave advisory panel: Massive conflicts of interest

      ¤ Judge: Close ties with Glaxo & Pfizer make their advice “suspect”

      By Klaus K, researcher

    • Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:.

      “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

      “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

      “There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”

      He also said:

      “Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

      Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.

      “Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”

      Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.

      “The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

      “It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”

      When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:

      “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

      “Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

      This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.

      “…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”

      Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.

      Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic

  3. Lepercolonist says:

    Closet Smokers

    I recently noticed a female co-worker smoking a cigarette as she was driving on the freeway. She is a 32 year divorced mother of two who has never been seen smoking at work. As I drove next to her she immediately pulled down the cigarette. She was shaking the cigarette under her car seat to disturb the emitted smoke. What is she ashamed of ?

    How many other closet smokers are out there ? Probably more than we imagine.

    • waltc says:

      And now: closet eaters. Article in the NY Times a while ago featured mothers who, having bought themselves a cupcake or a Danish, hid the bakery bag in a newspaper or tote bag before going home where The Children might see it, and wolfing it down in the bathroom. Public Hhealth has done a lot to make people sprout neuroses and totally insane manufactured guilts.

    • prog says:

      I think there are a lot. Shame, fear of reproach and alienation by family/colleagues etc has bound to have affected behaviour.

      I’d also imagine that many who claim to have quit are also secretly smoking. Even if it’s the occasional cig they are still smokers. I think this has been the case for many years – my aunt was/is an anti, yet had a pack of menthols in her kitchen drawer. Similarly a friend, a mild anti, who admitted to the occasional cig. In fact, I think a lot of smokers are anti to a greater or lesser extent. Wanting to quit is a kind of qualification and, as we all know,bone-fide ex-smokers are among the worst types of anti.

  4. waltc says:

    On yesterday’s thread, MJM and Gary were discussing the difficulty of unconvincing the mistakenly convinced. I’ll add to that, this:

    From NYU psych prof Jonathan Haidt, author of a book called “The Righteous Mind” and springing from his general theory that humans are hard wired to be pack animals, he’s quoted in a New Yorker article as saying this: “once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Thinking is mostly just rationalization, mostly just a search for supporting evidence.” And another psych prof, this one from Yale, qualifies this as “motivated reasoning” which he defines as ” when a person is conforming their [sic] assessments of information to some interest or goal that is independent of accuracy ” which the article writer, in turn, defines as “an interest or goal such as remaining a well-regarded member of his [group.]”

    Aside from accepting that the minds of the movers and shakers of TC are immovable objects, I think that caution can also apply to the run of the mill public that some of us occasionally try to sway in Comments and letters to eds. They too want to belong to that fashionable group of Really Nice People (endorsed by such Experts as surgeon generals and CDC heads) who are truly convinced that their hair smells rotten because they passed by a smoker and whose group identity is based on what they’re not as in “not a filthy smoker.” They surely suffer from a Righteous Mind but happily belong to a group of The Righteous wherein, all you have to do to gain entry, is proclaim the horrors of global warming and secondhand smoke.

    • Personally I take it as a the mission is to re-educate the public while battling the Nazis.

      Thru the years Ive had hundreds of people personally thank me for information destroying the Nazi claims. Countless copy and paste it and print it to have as reference material to fight back.

      Jousting with the Infidel is fine,cutting their heads off and shitting down their wind pipes of Lies is better.

  5. beobrigitte says:

    And the resignation of ex-Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (but not yet ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw) from parliament in the Cash for Access scandal.

    I do wonder if we – after all, we live in austerity-measures times – should reduce the number of MPs. Obviously there are far too many MPs for what appears to be little work.

    The basic annual salary for an MP is £67,060 but they also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, homes in London and their constituency and travel. […]
    […] Defending his secretly filmed comments, Sir Malcolm said it was “unrealistic” to expect MPs with a business or professional background “to simply accept a salary of £67,000” and they are rightly allowed to continue other employment.

    http: //

    £67,000 not enough to live on? Does “Sir” Malcolm understand that people with a business (e.g. pub ownership/management) background found themselves joining the dole queue, especially after 1.7.2007, and that people with a professional background often work a lot for a lot less than £67,000 p.a.?
    Apparently “Sir” Rifkind beat Jack Straw in charges for their ‘services’; Jack Straw asked for £5000 for a day, Rifkind asked for £5000 – £8000 for half a day.

    Perhaps they have so much spare time because their policies have been dictated by the most bidding buyer and it takes only a few seconds to sign yet another law proposal which, unbeknown to the public, has already been given the green light by yet other bought ‘politicians’?

    That does remind me; Dave has announced that pensioners ‘will be better off’ if they vote for the Tories.
    I have no idea, HOW; the baby boomer generation already is forced to stay in work longer; the reasoning is “we-live-longer-these-days”. The forgotten-to mention-bit is that the baby-boomers lived through the ‘smoking times’ and according to tobacco control, we should all be dead instead of cursing our way down a red ski slope……
    Then, those who have a work pension still qualify for State pension (the carrot being dangled is £148/week). What is NOT mentioned is the tax on this combined pension….
    Perhaps Dave has a few alternative jobs, too, which keep him too busy to actually THINK?

    We live exist/vegetate in “interesting” times [I have tried to strike out the “live”, not sure if it will work!!!] that I find mindnumbingly boring. No wonder so many older people are killing themselves, death is better than a mindless, lonely existence. What have the baby-boomers got to look forward to? Keep fit classes for the elderly? “Healthy living” lectures? Cosmetic surgery for the sagging boobs and balls? Competing with the young ones?
    GIVE US THE PUBS WITH ASHTRAYS ON THE TABLES BACK, DAVE!!!! Then we can start talking – for FREE!!!!

    (sorry! Rant over.)

    • Rose says:

      It is rather dull, Brigitte. At this time in my life I had been planning on exploring the country staying in little pubs and hotels here and there, but as nobody is allowed to cater for me anymore, I just stay at home.

    • What have the baby-boomers got to look forward to? Keep fit classes for the elderly?

      Fighting back til the whole damn agenda collapses thatswhat us baby boomers are doing.Im on the back side of the baby boom.

  6. Smoking Scot says:

    Check on your comment:

    “What’s to stop someone like Bloomberg buying politicians, in order to push through antismoking laws? Nothing that I can see. And £7 million would be peanuts to him.”

    His net worth in February 2015 was $35,700,000,000.00

    That translates to about £22,997,980,313.00

    Tried running the £7 million through and it says 3.0437455e-10

    So, were you to have about assets of about £230,000 it would be roughly the equivalent of buying one single cigarette paper. Not the pack of 50, just the one.

    • Smoking Scot says:

      Sorry, the 7 million comes to .0003%, so taking the same example. If you had net assets of 230,000, it’d be the same as coughing up 69 pence, so one complete book of fag papers and a box of matches.

      But it works fine if you’ve only got £100 spare cash, then it’s less than a fag paper.

  7. garyk30 says:

    “Tobacco ‘kills two in three smokers’,” BBC News,”

    Tobacco smoking and all-cause mortality in a large Australian cohort study: findings from a mature epidemic with current low smoking prevalence
    This is a prospective study of 204,953 individuals aged ≥45

    Overall, 5,593 deaths accrued during follow-up of 4 years.

    NOTE: This study is based on only 2.7% of the people having died. Results of the remaining 97.3% would probably be entirely different.

    Separately for males and females, absolute mortality rates for Australian smokers and non-smokers for age group i (45–54, 55–64, and 65–74 years) were estimated.
    NOTE: The median age of death in Australia is about 82, Hardly a representative study.

    “Cause of death information was not available at the time of analysis.”

    NOTE: Soooo, they don’t know what diseases these people died of; but, they ‘KNOW’ those deaths were caused by smoking.

    BTW, rates of death due not correspond to percentages of ‘total deaths’.

    Doll’s doctors death study showed that Never-smokers had a heart attack death rate of 6.19 per 1,000 people per year and smokers had a rate of 10.01 per 1,000.

    Smokers’ death rate was 62% higher.

    However, never-smoker total death rate per 1,000 per year was 19.38 and the 6.19 is 32% of the 19.38 total deaths.

    Smokers had 35.4 total deaths per year and the 10.01 deaths were only 28% of the total.

    28% is 13% LOWER than the 32%.

    A higher death rate does not absolutely lead to a higher % of total deaths.

  8. jltrader says:

    I see this article is tagged with ‘Politics’ so I thought of this video of ex West Germany chancellor Helmut Schmidt. It’s a talk-show from 1986. I noticed how naturally it was for people to smoke. Nowadays I imagine the you’d have calls from the the Arnott’s and Glantz’es of the world, accusing them of killing the nonsmokers in the audience.

    • Rose says:

      Top Gear pipes anger anti-smokers – 2007

      “Anti-smoking campaigners have asked the BBC to apologise after Top Gear presenters Jeremy Clarkson and James May lit pipes on Sunday’s show.”

      “There were no complaints from members of the audience present during the filming.”

      The BBC also said that it had only received two complaints from viewers of the show.

      However, the anti-smoking charity Action for Smoking on Health (Ash), demanded an apology from the Corporation. Amanda Sandford, spokeswoman for the charity, said: “Smoking in a studio is illegal. Anything that causes smoke is prohibited. ”

      • prog says:

        I have mixed feelings about TG. It’s mostly contrived puerile shite passed off as comedy. All those pointless choreographed races, road trips, ridiculous ‘sketches’ involving caravans, road kill (usually complete cows) and modified vehicles are excruciating. Still, that’s partly compensated by the two fingers at political correctness (even though Clarkson usually offers some grovelling apology). He only gets away with it because the programme is a major money spinner for the BBC. Largely because of him.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s