Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Friday, 9 October 2009
New Evidence In Bolivian Murders
These photos are taken in 2007. The Bolivian police do not dispute the photos are real, only claim the man in them many have been working under cover:
Link to Bolivian paper that published photos: (HERE)
The man on the left in the white shirt is Captain Walter Andrade.
Captain Walter Andrade: Before Flores was killed, Captain Walter Andrade was facing charges of adbucting a journalist and shooting at other journalists who were probing a corruption scandal at a media company. Captain Walter Andrade was also the man who led the operation that killed Eduardo and two others, including Irishman Micheal Dwyer. A coincidence?
Link to Bolivian paper that broke this story: (HERE)
So the only evidence of a plot to kill President Evo Morales comes from a video that is supposed to show Flores, Mario Tadic, Dwyer and one other plotting to blow up the President of Bolivia...
But look at the video: (HERE)
...Eduardo is dressed in exactly the same clothes that he was in 2007. Same shorts (with the No. 2 logo), t shirt and sunglasses. So the video is most likely taken in 2007 as well.
So we could assume:
More than likely the video was taken by none other than Captain Walter Andrade on the same day in 2007 as the photos.
Also that Captain Walter Andrade is also the person who submitted it to La Paz as proof of a plot, to save himself from going to prison and at the same time make himself a hero for saving the life of the President.
Only now does it emerge that Captain Walter Andrade led the operation in which Flores was killed and Tadic and Taoso arrested. But why has Captain Walter Andrade has been fired from his job, after saving the presidents life? He is apparently facing charges related to drink driving after he had an "accident".
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Simon Hutt's "Self-Fulfilling Bullshit" Theory
The Institute of Child Health studied more than 12,500 single born five-year-olds and found those with working mothers ate more snacks and watched more TV, regardless of the mother’s education or salary. While the proportion of working fathers has remained steady for decades, the number of working mothers has risen greatly - about 60% of mothers with children aged up to five are estimated to be in work.
Very interesting at first glance, however in looking closer at the study it stated that -
"this study did not take into account whether the father stayed at home."
In other words it is assuming that all families where the mother/wife goes out to work have unhealthy kids. Obviously the study is taking a pop at single mothers who make an effort to go out to work but at the same time does not take into account the fact that many fathers stay at home to look after the children- or does that mean that they are all just shit Dads? Well, at least 60% of them!
The worst thing is that this flawed study will be used "in evidence" that single working Mums are bad, the BBC's "Have Your Say" page had 1000 comments on this study with the majority of comments being of the single-parents-are-bad variety. Which is rather depressing in itself, not just because the study, because it didn't take into account fathers who stay at home or for that matter single Dads who go out to work, is obviously pointless and flawed, but also because nobody thought to question the "facts".
Self-Fulfilling Bullshit! As nobody has questioned this study it is taken as the truth, therefore anyone who wants to can point to this crap and state that it is proof that single working mums are bad. A bit like the statement that we will swallow four spiders a year while asleep! Although there is no study into this people take it as the truth because they have heard it so often. (It's a myth- I checked)
"Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" -Lenin
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Time for Change?
Having followed the UK political scene in detail for several months, the following is aparrent:
- Labour is doomed. Gordon "Unelected" Brown has failed as a leader and as the Chancellor in his previous incarnation under Tony Blair. Our current economic woes- rising national debt, budget black holes are down to him, not just the "Global Credit Crunch".
- People will vote for the Conservatives, not because of their outstanding policies (there are none), but because its not Labour. (see above!)
So thats it then, the current government is useless so we'll get the other lot in who might be less useless. And four or eight years down the line we'll realise that the differences between Labour and Conservative are indistinguishable.. To get into power the Labour party had to reinvent itself in the first place as a more "centrist" party- in other words- just like the Conservatives. The Conservatives, during the last 12 years have also has to try and reinvent itself as a more "centrist" party. In other words, since 1996, (assuming the Conservatives win the next election) we will have had two political parties in power who are absolutely no different from each other.
Shouldn't we demand better? Especially having had to put up with career politicians, expenses fraud and the general greed of those meant to represent our views in the last year. There needs to be a major shift in politics, the system itself has to change and MP's attitudes have to change, otherwise we will have another eight years of the same.
Liberal Democrats anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
