Posh Nosh - Episode 7

Sauces

The episode where Richard E. Grant aka the Hon. Simon Marchmont is a little 'sauced' himself.


Sorry about the sound glitch near the start and the adverts near the end.

More on the Barack Obama birth-certificate

Obama Release Your Records has a fascinating piece on the Barack Obama birth-certificate story, a story that just won't disappear...
Do read the whole article but here's a taster:

'The investigation's technical analysis relied on the work of Mara Zebest, an author and tech editor, who was enlisted by the Cold Case Posse to look at the documents. She concluded in a report that: “Obama’s PDF file can no longer be referred to as a ‘document,’ since that term implies it existed and started in paper form. Obama’s PDF must be referred to as a ‘digital file’ because that is all it has ever been. …”

Ms. Zebest says Obama’s long-form birth certificate is not even a good forgery. “Poor is an understatement. It’s horrific,” she said. “When it was released, I still expected a file that would be difficult to determine as fraudulent, but when I opened it up, within seconds it was clear it was an obvious fake.” In order to make sure she wasn’t seeing things, she says she called a friend who was also familiar with computer programming. He downloaded if from the White House website and had the same reaction. “Oh my God, somebody has been very sloppy here,” he said, according to Zebest.

For Ms. Zebest, the foremost sign that the document has been tampered with is the existence of layers. “Layers are a very damning part of why this is a forgery,” she said. Layers appear when a document is opened in a graphics program, like Adobe Illustrator. These layers contain elements from the document, but not the whole document. One layer may contain the background color. Another layer may contain only black text. The information that appears on each layer depends on how the document was originally created.

For those more familiar with a non-digital era, think of layers as transparencies used with a slide projector. Multiple transparencies may make up a single image. In this case, the transparencies are stacked one on top of the other to create a composite of Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

Ms. Zebest says there should be no layers in Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. “If you take a birth certificate and scan it into a computer, you’re going to end up with a flat document. You're not going to have anything with layers. The fact that it has multiple layers in itself means manipulation,” she said.

Obama’s long-form birth certificate contains nine layers.'

The story of Barack Obama's birth certificate interests me because I find it so unlikely that he was not born in Hawaii. However I think that there are many other questions that do need to be asked  about his history, questions that are easily evaded by the Obama camp by denigrating anybody who asks such questions with the insult 'birther'. Why have Barack Obama's educational records not been released? BIRTHER  So is it beyond the realm of possibility that the birth certificate released by the Barack Obama camp was deliberately made to look like a forgery?

Paranoid, Moi?

The BBC are shameless

The BBC like using experts to explain issues to their website readers. It's the Republican Party's National Convention so the BBC have an analysis piece from someone billed at the top of the article as 'PJ Crowley Former US Assistant Secretary of State' and at the bottom of the piece thus 'PJ Crowley is a former US assistant secretary of state and now a professor of practice and fellow at the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication at The George Washington University.'

The piece is a gentle attack on Mitt Romney as you would expect from someone who in 2009 was nominated by President Barack Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. A Democrat commenting on the Republican candidate for President but not being identified as such. Can we expect the BBC to ask a former Republican to comment negatively on Barack Obama's speech to the Democratic Convention, and not identify him/her as a Republican? I think we all know the answers to those questions...

Clint Eastwood's speech to the Republican National Conference

Do watch it all. Here thanks to The Washington Post is the full text of Clint Eastwood's speech:

'EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt. (APPLAUSE) I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what’s a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it. (APPLAUSE) So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw Jon Voight, a lot of people around. (APPLAUSE) Jon’s here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us. So I -- so I’ve got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he’s -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. (LAUGHTER) EASTWOOD: I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country. (APPLAUSE) Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously -- this administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem. (APPLAUSE) So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know -- I know -- people were wondering -- you don’t -- handle that OK. Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up? (LAUGHTER) OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. (APPLAUSE) I’ve got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And that’s -- now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for 10 years. (APPLAUSE) But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you’ve mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, “Why are you giving the date out now? Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?” (APPLAUSE) And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut up, it is my turn. (LAUGHTER) So anyway, we’re going to have -- we’re going to have to have a little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these promises -- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself. (APPLAUSE) You’re crazy, you’re absolutely crazy. You’re getting as bad as Biden. (APPLAUSE) Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. (LAUGHTER) Kind of a grin with a body behind it. (LAUGHTER) But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I think that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along. See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway. (APPLAUSE) I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they’re always taught to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both sides... MORE (INSERT ZACH) XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they’re always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything, weigh both sides. EASTWOOD: They are always devil’s advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff. But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe a businessman. How about that? (APPLAUSE) A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, “a stellar businessman.” And I think it’s that time. And I think if you just step aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still use a plane. (APPLAUSE) Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that. (APPLAUSE) You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to drive that around? OK, well anyway. All right, I’m sorry. I can’t do that to myself either. (APPLAUSE) I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we -- we own this country. (APPLAUSE) We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours. (APPLAUSE) And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just think it is important that you realize , that you’re the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go. (APPLAUSE) Okay, just remember that. And I’m speaking out for everybody out there. It doesn’t hurt, we don’t have to be (AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible) (LAUGHTER) I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time. (LAUGHTER) We don’t have to be -- what I’m saying, we do not have to be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the recent ads going out there, I don’t know. (APPLAUSE) But OK. You want to make my day? (APPLAUSE) All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead. AUDIENCE: Make my day! EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.'

Making fun of the Obamamessiah, the liberals will not be happy.

Another Twitter twit - @Nafeezi (updated)

Further to this post from last night, I have to report that @Nafeezi didn't respond to my tweets with a justification for his original claim...

He did however come up with some conspiracy theories...

I will be answering his tweets, it seems only polite, but somehow I doubt that I will ever receive a sensible response.

That's odd

The BBC report that:

'Summer 'wettest in 100 years', Met Office figures show'

Apparently:

'This summer is set to be the second wettest in the UK since records began - and the wettest summer in 100 years - provisional Met Office figures suggest. The wettest summer - defined as June, July and August - since national records began was in 1912. Figures up until 29 August show that 366.8 mm of rain fell across the UK this summer, compared with 384.4 mm rainfall in 1912. The April to June period was also the wettest recorded in the UK. The figures are provisional as there are still two days remaining in August, but the BBC Weather Centre said the rainfall was not expected to exceed the total amount in 1912. Records began in 1910.'

That's very odd because I remember the certainty with which The Guardian reported in 2006 as fact that:

'Scientists know a lot about how events will unfold...which means that whatever we do, our climate destiny is fixed for the next few decades... Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground.'

I wonder if the BBC/Guardian recall the narrative they used to push just a few years ago. Or do they switch from believing in drought to flood as easily as the citizens of Oceania swapped between believing the enemy was Eurasia or Eastasia.

'Scientists know... climate destiny is fixed... Rainfall will decline in the summer...' It's all rubbish folks; most of these scientists are not predicting based on science, they are designing science to fit the desired predictions.

Posh Nosh - Episode 6

Leftovers

"Brando the butter" - foodie reference?!

The wine is "Pure and well-balanced, like a nun on a tightrope"
'Vinegars from Je Vinnegrette Rien'

Well I can't do that!

Another Twitter twit - @Nafeezi

I have been having another Twitter conversation with a hater of Israel. Just like @Jew4palestine he tweets rubbish and just won't admit it. Here's the sequence of tweets, in this case another Tweeter was also trying to point out the lie told.

For the record, even Wikipedia reports the total deaths in the Israel/Palestinian conflict thus:

'A variety of studies provide differing casualty data for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 13,000 Israelis and Palestinians were killed in conflict with each other between 1948 and 1997. Other estimations give 14,500 killed between 1948–2009.Palestinian fatalities during the 1982 Lebanon War were 2,000 PLO combatants killed in armed conflict with Israel.'

So who to believe, the Stockhold Peace Research Institute and others that show a total of 27,500 Israelis and Palestinians killed 1947 to 2009 or @Nafeezi who claims to remember 'the tens of thousands of Palestinian children being exterminated daily by #IDF' ?

@Nafeezi has not admitted his mistake/lie, indeed he as you can see above, he just went on the attack. He has of course not responded to me or @Israelradioguy.

The trouble is that @Nafeezi is not alone in believing this rubbish, and spreading it. I see it as my duty to correct such lies. In case you can't be bothered with following the links to @Nafeezi, here's the man himself...

Some mistake surely...

The Times reports on the outside earnings of MPs, the highest 'earner', I use the term loosely, being Gordon 'sold the gold' Brown. The graphic shows Conservative MPs in blue and Labour MPs in red but there seems to be one mistake

David Blunkett a Conservative? I think not.

I remember when The Times was the paper of record...

Israel always and only to blame

Recently the BBC posted this report on their website, here's the whole report:

'The Gaza Strip will not be "a liveable place" by 2020 unless action is taken to improve basic services in the territory, according to a UN report.

Basic infrastructure "is struggling to keep pace with a growing population", the UN Country Team (UNCT) in the occupied Palestinian territory said.

It estimates Gaza's population will rise from 1.6m to 2.1m by 2020.

Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after the Islamist movement Hamas seized power in the coastal territory in 2007.

Israel says the restrictions, which are policed with Egyptian co-operation, are necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas. Palestinians and human rights group denounce them as "collective punishment".

The UN report, "Gaza in 2020: A liveable place?", estimates the territory will need double the number of schools and 800 more hospital beds by 2020, and says it is already suffering from a housing shortage.

The report also says the coastal aquifer, the territory's only natural source of fresh water, may become unusable by 2016.

UN officials point to the difficulty of improving the situation given "the closure of the Gaza Strip, violent conflict, and the pressing need for Palestinian reconciliation".

"An urban area cannot survive without being connected," said Maxwell Gaylard, the UN Resident and Humanitarian Co-ordinator.

Gaza has no air or sea ports, and the economy is heavily dependent on outside funding and smuggling through tunnels under the Egyptian border.

Even though Gaza has experienced some economic growth in recent years, the report says it "does not seem to be sustainable" and finds that Gazans are worse off now than in the 1990s.

Unemployment was at 29% in 2011 and has risen since then, particularly affecting women and young people.

Traffic through the cross-border tunnels was hit in recent weeks by violence between Egyptian security forces and militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, which borders Israel and Gaza.'

It was these two lines that particularly caught my eye:

'Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after the Islamist movement Hamas seized power in the coastal territory in 2007.

Israel says the restrictions, which are policed with Egyptian co-operation, are necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas. Palestinians and human rights group denounce them as "collective punishment".'

The first line was interesting as it did at least acknowledge that Hamas seized power in Gaza and that they are Islamists, albeit the word terrorists was not used. The second line was also interesting as it did acknowledge something that the BBC rarely acknowledge, that Egypt cooperates with the blockade of Gaza.

Something made me check with News Sniffer as to how the article changed over time. Here's some of the changes, I think that they are interesting.
The very first version of the BBC report included this line:

'Hamas leaders in Gaza had hoped that the administration of the new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a fellow Islamist, would ease the blockade but so far there has not been any sign that Egypt will open its border.'

That soon disappeared, I wonder why? Maybe it doesn't fit the BBC narrative to call Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist. Linking the Muslim Brotherhood with Hamas is also tricky for the BBC, so maybe best to just drop this line...

Now this is interesting, that second line above started like this:

'Israel says the blockade, policed with Egyptian co-operation, is necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas. '

Reporting Israel's line without any countering 'facts', that will never do. So the BBC version changed to:

'Israel says the blockade, which is policed with Egyptian co-operation and has never been fully lifted, is necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas.'

And then to:

'Israel says the restrictions, which are policed with Egyptian co-operation, are necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas. Palestinians and human rights group denounce them as "collective punishment".'

The BBC try not to let people know that Gaza has a border with Egypt and therefore that Egypt is blockading Gaza just as much as Israel. Remember this post? After all how would that aid their narrative of a big bad Israel and poor defenceless Palestinians? How would it fit in with the BBC's support for blockade breaking organisations if people knew that Egypt was also blockading Gaza? People might start to wonder why only the blockade busters and other supporters of the Palestinians only protest about Israel's blockade of Gaza and not the Egyptian's.

The BBC Trust has ruled that Labour MP Diane Abbott should not have been paid for recent appearances on This Week.

The BBC are reporting that: 

'The BBC Trust has ruled that Labour MP Diane Abbott should not have been paid for recent appearances on flagship political programme This Week.

Ms Abbott, a regular guest with Tory MP Michael Portillo and presenter Andrew Neil, has been paid thousands in appearance fees.

The BBC claimed rules banning payments to MPs representing their parties did not apply as This Week was not a "normal" political show.

But this was rejected by the Trust.

The Trust also ruled the MP's appearances had been "too frequent" since she became a shadow minister.

In January crossbench peer Lord Laird complained that Ms Abbott had received five payments of £839 and one of £869 for appearances on This Week.

The BBC's editorial guidelines state that MPs should not be paid for appearances where they are "speaking as a member of their party or expressing political views".

The guidelines allow for the payment of a realistic "disturbance fee" to cover the time and inconvenience i
involved in appearing in a broadcast but Lord Laird argued that the payments to Ms Abbott went beyond this.'

 Well that's settled then? Well no, not really as the last line of the report makes clear:

'A spokeswoman for BBC News said that they "note the findings" of the Trust.'

 Ah the BBC, will they ignore the ruling of the BBC Trust? After all it is a Labour shadow minister whose nose needs to be kept in the public trough.

Because dead Israeli Jews aren't newsworthy at the BBC

The BBC have been in full two-minute hate mode in their coverage of the latest judicial instalment of the story of the unfortunate and accidental death of the 'peace campaigner' Rachel Corrie. In all the interviews with Rachel Corrie's family and representatives of the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement I did not hear any interviewer ask the questions 'Were there any arms smuggling tunnels underneath the family home that Rachel Corrie was trying to protect?' and 'Did Rachel Corrie know that there were  smuggling tunnels underneath the family home that she was trying to protect?'. I think we all know why the BBC would never ask such a question.

Bearing in mind the amount of coverage that the BBC have accorded to the death of Rachel Corrie, how much coverage have they ever given the deaths of these other Rachels?

'Some of the forgotten Rachels: 

Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store)

Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus)

Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal)

Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children)

Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home)

Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall)

Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.

Rachel Sela, 82, murdered the day before Purim on March 4th, 1996 when an Palestinian suicide bomber exploded at Dizingoff Center, Tel Aviv.

Rachel Tajgatrio, 83, murdered while shopping in Jerusalem's "Machaneh Yehuda" market when 2 bombs went off on July 30th, 1997.

Rachel Thaler, 16 years old from Ginot Shomron died of her wounds on February 27 2002, after a Palestinian bomber exploded in a shopping mall's food court, killing 3, wounding 30.

Rachel Tamari,  61, murdered by a Palestinian bomb on the Dan #20 bus in Ramat Gan, on July 24, 1995.  6 Israelis died in that attack, and dozens were wounded.

Rachel Drouk, 35, mother of 7 from the Shilo community was murdered by Palestinian terrorist gunfire while on her way to a demonstration (October 28, 1991) -- that negotiating with Palestinian terrorists would be dangerous to Israel.  The driver of her car, Yitzchak Rofeh was also killed and 5 others wounded.

Rachel Weiss, 26, pregnant and mother of 3 small children (Rafael, Netanel and Efraim), were all murdered by Palestinian terrorists who threw a molotov cocktail at her car in the Jordan Valley (October 31, 1988)

Rachel Weiss, 69, stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists who were sent by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to as an "entrance test" to the Hamas organizations.  She was murdered in her home in Moshav Shapir, August 3rd, 1988.

Rachel Munk, 24, [married 6 weeks earlier] was murdered in a drive-by terror attack by on July 26, 1996, along with her husband Zeev Munk.  The attack took place on the Beit Shemesh - Kiryat Melachi road near Moshav Gefen.

Rachel Stern, 8 years old,  stabbed to death, along with her mother, while eating breakfast in their home in Kiryat Shmona, on April 11, 1974.  16 people were murdered that day by Palestinian terrorists in that attack.

Rachel Afita, 16, murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the Northern Israeli community of Maalot on May 15, 1974

Rachel Lev, 50, murdered by Palestinian terrorists when 5 bombs exploded throughout the Haifa area on October 23, 1969.  7 people were killed in the attack, including her husband Eliyahu and son Avraham.

Rachel Mizrachi, 38, stabbed to death by Arab terrorists in her home in Tiberias, October 2, 1939.

May their memories be blessed.'

Most of these Rachels have never merited more than a one line on the BBC, if that. None have had the manner and circumstances of their deaths examined in such detail as was accorded the death of Rachel Corrie. Yes Rachel corrie was British and thus to the BBC's eyes her death was more newsworthy but do these Rachels really deserve to die with their deaths unrecorded on the BBC?

I suppose that as with the vile murder of the Fogel family each of these murdered Rachels might have been killed during a 'very busy news period' but somehow I doubt that was the reason for the Rachels or the Fogel family. The real reason is clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.


Thanks to The Muqata for the list of murdered Rachels.

Posh Nosh - Episode 5

Bread AND Butter Pudding

"Next week... we'll be taunting an aubergine"

What is a hate crime?

What’s more of a hate crime, a Jewish student whose jaw was broken… or a burnt Koran left outside a mosque? Lansing State Journal reports that:

'The 19-year-old victim, Zachary Tennen, told his parents and the police that two men with shaved heads broke his jaw at an off-campus party in East Lansing. The men asked whether he was Jewish, his mother and father, Tina and Bruce Tennen, said, then raised their arms in a Nazi salute, chanted “Heil Hitler” and knocked him to the ground. They then “stapled me in the back side of my bottom teeth, starting in my gums and going upwards,” his father said, reading from Zachary’s statement to East Lansing Police.'

What a horrible experience but according to the same news report:

'Though the incident has provoked outrage around the state, police haven’t found evidence so far to support the idea that it was a hate crime, (East Lansing police Capt. Jeff Murphy) said.

“With a hate crime, the motive is what’s in question. We have the victim’s family saying that he was assaulted because of his religion and that’s obviously a very serious thing,” Murphy said. “The problem is, right now, we don’t have anybody else who says that’s the case. In fact, we’ve got witnesses that say that was not at all the case.”

It is interesting to note that whilst the East Lansing Police are currently sceptical as to whether this was a hate crime, they were less reticent when a burnt Koran was left outside East Lansing's Islamic Centre last September. In that instance the East Lansing Police Department is offering $10,000 for information that leads to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for the act. Is it really the case that the East Lansing Police deem a burnt Koran merits a $10,000 reward but a badly beaten Jewish college student's evidence can be closely questioned?

You won't be surprised to learn that the BBC have not reported this news story.

 

4 Happy Spice Girls and 1 Not - Can Victoria Beckham actually smile?

 Does she have really bad teeth? She doesn't seem to want to show them off, anyway.
 

Thanks to MSN and Mel B for the pictures.

BBC biased reporting

When George Osborne made his 110% effort remarks the usual suspects at the BBC were in raptures at the mathematical stupidity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Oddly I have not seen the BBC even mention Barack Obama's rather similar error

Why the difference in coverage BBC? It's alright, don't bother answering I already know the reason.

CiF Watch ‘Style’ Guide to the Middle East for the Perplexed: A to Z | CiF Watch

http://cifwatch.com/2012/08/06/cif-watch-style-guide-to-the-middle-east-for-the-perplexed-a-to-z/

Posh Nosh - Episode 4

Beautiful Food
Lemon positioning is key...

Yet another Barack Obama supporter with a rather sick line in Tweeting

Further to my earlier post about Samuel L. Jackson's off-colour tweeting, I see on Guido Fawkes that George Monbiot has tweeting similarly...

These left-wing types really have a nasty streak don't they. Yet the Conservatives/Republicans are deemed to be the 'nasty party'.