Sunday, September 28, 2008
The 'nasty' party?
More on the Conservatives as the Wales on Sunday report on the 39 page dossier put together by their Welsh branch to mark First Minister's Rhodri Morgan, 69th birthday. According to Matt Withers the document amounts to a highly personal attack on every aspect of his leadership – right down to his dress sense and hairstyle.
Entitled ‘Rhodri Morgan: Leadership Without Purpose’ the paper rakes through the Labour leader’s career, laying into everything including: his stewardship of the economy; his “unique dress sense and hairstyle”; his “erratic and unusual behaviour”; claims he had “undermined the role of First Minister and embarrassed the National Assembly and Wales”; and the fact he once posed for a picture with TV presenter Timmy Mallett.
It also mocks all of the contenders to succeed Mr Morgan when he steps down this time next year and refers to “damaging” speculation following reports last week that he was considering staying on.
We are told that only four pages deal with policy matters, the other 35 amount to a character assasination on the First Minister. How very constructive. Do the Welsh Tories really believe that this sort of cheap shot advances political debate in this country? I hope not.
Entitled ‘Rhodri Morgan: Leadership Without Purpose’ the paper rakes through the Labour leader’s career, laying into everything including: his stewardship of the economy; his “unique dress sense and hairstyle”; his “erratic and unusual behaviour”; claims he had “undermined the role of First Minister and embarrassed the National Assembly and Wales”; and the fact he once posed for a picture with TV presenter Timmy Mallett.
It also mocks all of the contenders to succeed Mr Morgan when he steps down this time next year and refers to “damaging” speculation following reports last week that he was considering staying on.
We are told that only four pages deal with policy matters, the other 35 amount to a character assasination on the First Minister. How very constructive. Do the Welsh Tories really believe that this sort of cheap shot advances political debate in this country? I hope not.
Comments:
<< Home
I'd rather keep on peeing privately in a urinal than pee over "Anonymous". One thing obviously clear is that the frustrated "Anonymous" has spent too much time peeing against the wind in the political wilderness. Rhodri Morgan does leave himself wide open to jolly criticism. The Tories need to be careful with the mud slinging. Someone might start throwing well deserved stinking excrement all over them
... "and tell me it's raining" ... molecules with a carbonyl group in the middle and an NH2 group to the 'right and left'. Gives new meaning to "right/left of center". He's left of the carbonyl right NH2 group! Bit like saying "I live 10 miles east of Chicago". (Got to have lived in Chicago to understand that one).
# posted by 
: 6:40 PM
: 6:40 PM
Is there one person, or are there two persons calling themselves "Anonymous" here? Whatever and whoever, please tell us 'what you're on', as it sounds a bit hallucinatory. Does anyone understand the postings here of "Anonymous"?
Green man> FYI: NH2-CO-NH2 (as quoted by anon (8:57 AM)) is the chemical formula for urea. If you could only see it on a Silicone graphics work station, how it symmetrical and gorgeous it is. Hydrophilic up the yahzoo. The chemical properties of urea lend itself to why we have 'evolved' to use kidneys and water as the solvent to get rid of unwanted protein breakdown products. Those there hydrogens in urea, covalently bonded as they are to those 'heavy' nitrogens - means hydrogen bonding galore (up to four), even the carbonyl has a small dipole across it. Could you imagine this: R1-CO-R2 where R1 and/or R2 are long chain alkyls? Probably not, but if urea had such a formula, we would not be on water rich planet earth, but some hydrophobic solvent dominated planet far far away from Earth where a certain Rabies symptom might be the norm. If God just twiddle it a bit, 'evolution' would have turned out be quite different, vCJD wouldn't have been an issue (in a hydrophobic environment the causative agent for vCJD 'turns itself inside out' - if 'our' version of 'thermoydynamics' was controlling then vCJD protein molecules would denature (proteins have a hydrophilic core and a hydrophilic surface, unless they are integral membrane proteins where the rules of protein folding are essentially reversed.
It's quite frightening that our school system does not educate kids to the extent that they know the chemical structure of urea. No wonder 'chemicals' seem dangerous when in fact we are comprised of chemical molecules.
It's quite frightening that our school system does not educate kids to the extent that they know the chemical structure of urea. No wonder 'chemicals' seem dangerous when in fact we are comprised of chemical molecules.
# posted by : 2:52 PM
: 2:52 PM
Alter-ego >> It's quite frightening that our school system does not educate kids to the extent that they know the chemical structure of urea.
I'd regard it as being quite sad, and a poor reflection on our inadequate school system.
I remember a Arts Graduate doing a Physics conversion course, two years long to teach physics coming up with the immortal one liner:
"How the f@ck can F equal MA"
(Actually doesn't F = d(MV)/dt
= dM/dt + dV/dt)
Newtons' second law anyone?
I'd regard it as being quite sad, and a poor reflection on our inadequate school system.
I remember a Arts Graduate doing a Physics conversion course, two years long to teach physics coming up with the immortal one liner:
"How the f@ck can F equal MA"
(Actually doesn't F = d(MV)/dt
= dM/dt + dV/dt)
Newtons' second law anyone?
# posted by : 5:29 PM
: 5:29 PM
Your alter-ego (AISA) here ...
F = m(dV/dt)
In your formula m being a constant differentiating it would just turn it into '1', i.e., m would disappear) and F = a (not true)
... as to your question, from memory: An object will remain at rest or in a state of steady/continuous velocity (motion) unless acted upon by a net-resultant force.
Of course in reality we are all moving even if we are standing still. But relative to other objects near us we can be at rest (to an observer).
Post a Comment
F = m(dV/dt)
In your formula m being a constant differentiating it would just turn it into '1', i.e., m would disappear) and F = a (not true)
... as to your question, from memory: An object will remain at rest or in a state of steady/continuous velocity (motion) unless acted upon by a net-resultant force.
Of course in reality we are all moving even if we are standing still. But relative to other objects near us we can be at rest (to an observer).
# posted by : 6:09 AM
: 6:09 AM<< Home
