Monday, October 22, 2012

Rowan Atkinson on Reform Section 5

His Grace deeply desires to be mocked, criticised and insulted. Not gratuitously, of course, but rather upon the matter of his opinions or beliefs - political or religious - because mockery, criticism or insult are often the means by which those opinions may be changed or beliefs develop and mature. He doesn't enjoy having his feelings hurt, but feelings are the pathway to the spirit and may naturally disturb the mind toward deeper reflection.

To outlaw 'insulting words or behaviour' - as Section 5 of the Public Order Act does - is to inhibit freedom of speech and impinge upon freedom of expression. Since its entry into statute, there has been a rather chilling effect on these freedoms, such that people have been arrested for (peaceably) calling Scientology a 'cult'; questioning the value of a hijab; screening New Testament texts in a cafe; displaying a sign which said homosexual conduct is immoral; objecting to seal-culling; placing a sign in a window which says ‘religions are fairy stories for adults’; and calling a police horse 'gay'.

According to Section 5, a person is guilty of an offence if (s)he uses abusive or insulting words (orally or written) 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby'.

It is difficult to measure such subjective reactions, but basically it means you can no longer tell people what you really think about Islam, homosexuality or the police. Criminal law rightly protects individuals against unjust discrimination, incitement and violence. But it is unacceptable that it has moved into areas of annoyance, disturbance and inconvenience. The law should punish violence or the threat of violence; it should not be used to protect us from having our feelings hurt, especially since people may manifestly choose of their own volition to be offended.

In fact, His Grace is rather offended that you are offended. But he, being Christian, is sure to get short shrift in a court of law.


Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The 'gay' horse should have been arrested for inciting and arousing an unseemly response in the student.

22 October 2012 at 10:12  
Blogger William said...

Very well argued by Mr. Atkinson and what a cunning plan to get him to promote the campaign. More cunning than a fox that's just been made professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

22 October 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger graham wood said...

I wonder when members of the UK Cabinet, under one Mr Cameron who have deeply insulted over 607,000 people opposed to "gay marriage", who publicly registered that objection, will have their collars felt by the police?

One law for them and one .......

22 October 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger Chris Miller said...

This is all very well argued and eminently reasonable. But let me pick out one thing Rowan Atkinson said: "We all have to take responsibility for what we say."

His Grace may detect some irony here because anonymous blogging and tweeting leaves people unaccountable for what they say. Free speech was largely self-regulating until the internet anonymity thing came in.

While His Grace is at the responsible end of anonymous free speech, improving our lives with the aid of anonymity, there are those who troll anonymously.

So there's an argument to leave a mechanism to unmask and prosecute anonymous trolls. Just don't ask me to police it.

PS. I love that this blog does not allow anonymous comments!

22 October 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Miller,

This blog used to permit anonymous comments, and His Grace had no essential problem with them. But as his fame and reputation spread, he was obliged to spend the first hour of every day deleting spam. Prohibiting anons was was the only mechanism available on Blogger for mitigating the irritation.

22 October 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

When are we going to have a politician - let alone a Prime Minister - who can speak so well or articulate an argument so well?

22 October 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger graham wood said...

Jim. Absolutely right!

On the issue of same sex marriage our bone idle political 'elite' are so arrogant on this policy that they cannot even be bothered to explain it, or to make a case for it.
They simply expect it to be endorsed by the electorate, many of whom were conned by the government's own "consultation" process.
Particularly reprehensible, and conspicuous by her apparent ignorance is "culture" Secretary Mrs Maria Miller who blandly invites us all to join "Out4marriage" in her appalling and sanctimonious 3 minute video.

22 October 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So, next time Avi screams "anti-semite !!!" when I slag off Israel, I can rely on Cranmer to remind him that Israel doesn't get a free passage? No? Well, can't have everything, I suppose.

22 October 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Section 5 is a new blasphemey law, "protecting" all religions and none, of course.
It certainly stifles debate.
WHen people as diverse as the NSS & the evangelical churches agree that section 5 is a disaster, you can be sure something is seriously wrong.

The guvmint have been told, by just about everyone, that this law has to go.
And they are, quite delivberately, doing nothing.

One way out, is for huge numbers of private prosecutions for "offence, clogging up the courts, until they finally get the message?
Another way is to appeal to the EUHACR, since it manifestly restricts freedom of expression.

Not good at all.

22 October 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

More power to Rowan Atkinson, and thank you YG for posting this.

Surely the most recent manifestation of the excesses of the "Shut 'Em Up" brigade must be the sorry case of Andrew Mitchell.

While holding no brief for him and viewing him with the same distain as I do Cameron, I believe he was unjustly forced to resign.

With no trial, no hearing and a baying mob offended at his alleged use of the word "Pleb" he was railroaded out of office.

Quite why the word "Plebian" holds such negative conotations I cannot understand. They were a firmly middle-class order and thus the appellation should be viewed by most as a compliment.

What if he had called the policeman a "Pat" as in Patrician?
Would the Police Federation have construed that as "Prat"?
Probably so.

A member of HMG should not be arbitrarily directed as to what route he should take, when, in his judgement, or by his own choosing, he prefers a particular route to exit his place of business.

22 October 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"So, next time Avi screams "anti-semite !!!" when I slag off Israel, I can rely on Cranmer to remind him that Israel doesn't get a free passage? No? Well, can't have everything, I suppose."
Free Speech and the right to offend/insult doesn't quite work like that. You have the right to offend him back by declaring he is a Zionist loving Yid with what sparse evidence you usually muster, as you habitually infer!


22 October 2012 at 14:15  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Tingey, you just scared me! We are in agreement and I believe you to be fully compus mentus at this moment in time!!! ;-)
Following on from your final comment, would it not be worth someone with the time and ability to take it further being offended by something that Cameron says and taking him to court over it? Surely that would be the sort of kick up the backside that the system could do with?!

22 October 2012 at 14:53  
Blogger Berserker said...

Why was the 1986 Public Order Act legislated?

To get rid of gypos, squatters and football hooligans? I must admit I don't know.

If I were walking down my local High Street and said to PC Plod. I say Constable, you see that fat woman parking illegally on the double yellow line. What are you going to do about it?

Arrest you, Sir. The word 'fat' is an insult.

But I'm a lover of Rubens, Constable.

Well, I'll arrest him as well, Sir.

So you let people park on double yellows?

Well, Sir are you saying there's a connection between yellow and people? That has connotations of racism.

Who know where this little exchange might lead, perhaps in the end the Constable arrests the car.

An absurdity follows: By the way, the accused has to PROVE that he had no reason to believe there was anyone in his/her house, within sight or hearing when he might have said, let us say: Tiddles! You've piddled again. It's the vet for you, my lad! (as this might have caused alarm or distress)

22 October 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Simon Mason ‏@LDNCalling

@His_Grace Study: Gay Adoptive Parents Make Great Adoptive Parents

Just looked into what LDN sent and to say the authors are biased is laughable. One female author of the 3 specialises in writing about the liberty of female sexuality and lesbianism, one a male cognitive psychiatrist and a n other.

Find what little I could without becoming a member to buy said journal about as authoritative and unbiased as ASH or relying on their statistics for smoking.


22 October 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger Chris Miller said...

Your Grace,

Thank you for your clarification about the comments. There are many valid arguments in different situations for anonymity or full disclosure, both for ideological and practical reasons.

I am genuinely in awe of you for your insights and the way you express them. And I would hazard a guess that anonymity helps you speak more freely. So I'm all in favour of all that.

But I'm just trying to nitpick that free speech for individuals always used to be self-regulating, whereas you have been reincarnated in an age where cowardly anonymous trolling knows no limits.

So the challenge is to restore the spirit of free speech, but also acknowledge that laws need to be updated for the internet age.

22 October 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Unless I am specifically mentioned in a statute, it does not apply to oneself, all being equal

22 October 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The irony that objection to this unjust prohibition law is being championed by one of the country’s most successful professional clowns has not been lost on the Inspector. And yes, one is reminded that when a western country banned alcohol, “for the good of all”, a string of unpleasant characters followed in the wake. Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger, Al Capone, James Cagney. “Hey mister, you want some free speech ? I can supply some real good stuff…”

22 October 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha! You beat me to the response to the inimitable Corrigan, Mr Blofeld! Many thanks for valiantly covering my to speak... in my brief absence. Best to allow Corry to think that he offends me, though. Lemme try this on him: Pry my glove off your lardy face and choose your weapons, Corrigan, thou uncircumcised gin-soaked dullard of an antisemite thou! Or else slither thee off upon your yellow belly back to your Mullah's seraglio, thou Hell-bound Mohammedan's catamite thou! Perhaps too flowery? Methinks a plain sod off! might work better.

I've been away sailing the asphalt seas again, in search of treasure to pay for the peas'n porridge and rising parochial school fees for my little brood of Imperialist Zionists-in-training and missed out on this new law of yours, though. Is it for real? Has it been passsed? Enforced? I can't believe it, how utterly un-British! Now I will fret that when they twist the thumbscrews on His Grace...or cruelly deprive him of his Rioja plonk for a fortnight... he might blurt out my true identity and will end up with irons on my wrists next time I try to catch a transfer at Heathrow en route to Ben Gurion International in the Occupied Zionist Territories. I shall live in terror from now on...or, groan, have to use Shiphol.

22 October 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Miller, anonymity on the 'Net is also self-regulating, at least where those who are in for the long haul on a blog are concerned. Pride in one's thoughts and words and good old fashioned vanity make sure of that. As you will witness here, the community polices itself through peer pressure. Not effective against the wandering troll or two, but by and large a good system that works.

22 October 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"Gin soaked dullard"? How dare you, you secret pork nibbler you. I'll have you know I never touch the stuff. By the way, what did Blofeld say about me? I'd read it myself but I don't speak egomaniac - so you'll have to translate for me.

22 October 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi’s back - single malts all round chaps !

22 October 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha! Single malt's a little out of my reach this season, Inspector; will the manly bite of Canada's Crown Royal blend do the job? Works well when chilled in the freezer to a gel consistency and it's flavour comes out with, you guessed it, a chunk of salty shmaltz herring with a sliver of raw onion all on a wheaty Tam Tam cracker.

A low and cravenly blow that, Corrigan, the secret pork-nibbling accusation. You should know that although I haven't touched the prince of meats even in its best incarnations as fried Hungarian smoked bacon, sweet Virginia ham or Macedonian loukanitsa dry sausage for over eleven years, my taste buds remember and I still dream of it from time to time.

22 October 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. Blended whisky ! My dear fellow, plenty of ice, and then some more.

Not much to report in your absence. Top news is that DanJ0 has found himself a rent boy. Pops round after school so he does {AHEM}

Apart from that latter unpleasantry , all's well in the Empire.

God save the Queen...

22 October 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Of course, Avi, if you converted to Catholicism you could stuff your face with pork...although if you did, I'm not sure if you'd be allowed to remain a citizen of "the region's only democracy"

22 October 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wonder if posting this is a public order offence? I hope not.

22 October 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Naw... too mediocre.

22 October 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger len said...

'The law should punish violence or the threat of violence'.

That should be the extent of the Law in a Democracy otherwise we are verging on a' Police State'.Positively Orwellian!.

22 October 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

G-d bless our gracious Queen indeed, Inspector. It's good to be back in her domains. As much as I like Americans, even Carl, it's good to ride under the image of the Crown on our lawn-green highway signs. The Yanks are in the midst of a fascinating presidential race, one which will determine the fate of the US...and the rest of the world. We truckers may not be Harvard-schooled poli-sci majors, but we're quite an astute lot. For example, I have a hundred riding on a 7 point victory of Mr Romney. It's not just hopeful thinking; the exhaustion of ordinary Americans with the increasingly repulsive and mendatious Big O is palpable and it's a mystery why the pollsters and the media haven't clued-on. The last big debate's on tonight for which I shall pop some popcorn as it promises to be another cliff-hangert. Alas, too late for you kids on the other side of the Greenwich line, but there's always YouTube, of course.

Easier to be a bad pork-munching Yid than to take a dunk in the baptismal and confuse friends and family, Corrigan. Would get me out of this year's synagogue membership dues, though. But you've been misinformed; plenty of Catholic Israeli citizens, with no small number of them serving honourably as volunteers in the IDF. See

22 October 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Don't know what you think Catholics are about, Avi, but right there on the home page you directed me to are the words "end times". That'a a heresy straight off the bat. Are you sure these guys aren't Prods in disguise?

22 October 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, there are those of us in mother England who put Obama’s victory down to blacks and immigrants heeding the call to elect one of their own to the Whitehouse. Rather doubt that the ‘brothers’ will again turn out in force for him, as they have all failed to get rich quick under his stewardship...

pip pip !

22 October 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Can't help you with that question, Corrigan, better ask the resident theologians here. And I'm sure Dodo and Len will be glad to have one of their amiable discourses over this.

22 October 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer said ...

"His Grace" ... cough, cough ... deeply desires to be mocked, criticised and insulted ... upon the matter of his opinions or beliefs - political or religious - because mockery, criticism or insult are often the means by which those opinions may be changed or beliefs develop and mature." ... or not ... "He doesn't enjoy having his feelings hurt, but feelings are the pathway to the spirit and may naturally disturb the mind toward deeper reflection."


Can I now call you an anti-Catholic bigot (again) without the threat of excommunication hangingover? Not that you are. And it was never gratuitous. More a touch of Catholic rebellion - protestation, if you will.

22 October 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


I'm not 100% clear on Catholics for Isreal.

You should read their "Why Catholics for Isrel" before making any rash judgements about heresy.

Apart from this ....

"affirm the irrevocable and permanent nature of God’s covenant with the Jewish people and oppose the false teaching of replacement theology (supersessionism), which claims that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people."

... which is something of an over simplification of successionism, its seems generally okay (I think?).

It is more honest than its protestant equivalents and states openly:

We do NOT:

- attribute a Messianic significance to the modern state of Israel in its present form.

- advocate the rebuilding of the Temple and re-establishment of animal sacrifices.

- support the ingathering of the Jewish people to the Holy Land in the eschatological hope of ushering in the battle of Armageddon.

- necessarily agree with every political or military action carried out by the government of Israel.

- support any form of injustice or discrimination towards anyone.

- hold any anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian attitudes.

22 October 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Israel ... Israel ... (must proof read before posting!).

22 October 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, this is the big mystery that won't be cleared-up until the vote count, Inspector; will the Blacks come out in the numbers they did before, and vote at 95% for Barry? But being something like 17% of the population, it's not they or the Latin immigrants who put the doofus in power, but the lily-white East and West Coast liberals, trade unionists, brainless college kids, the enviro-nutters, the "green" technology shysters and even some big business which did very well under O. Should admit too, with a bit of embarrassment, that liberal secular US Jews voted around 78% for Obama in 2008, although mainly because they are die-hard "loyalist" Democrats no matter what. The latest numbers hint that 10-20% might have cooled their adoration, and I'm hoping the majority of them will stay home, conflicted into pretzels of indecision, and waste their vote. The moderates and undecideds, last assumed to be at 30% will swing the vote. The egghead analysts say it will be a tight race, but I prefer to listen to the Vegas bookies who are usually right and they predict a Romney landslide. I sure hope so, not only because I got a 100 riding on it, but my business and livelihood. If Obama stays, the EPA...the Environmental Protection Agency...will plonk down transportation-killing regulations which it's been holding back until the elections. And that would be the least of our worries.

22 October 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi wrote:

As much as I like Americans, even Carl,

Canadians. What possessed the UK to give Canada its independence, anyways? Did the Prime Minister wake up with a bad hangover that morning?

"For God sake! Do what you want about Canada. Just close those curtains!"

If you want to insult Avi, you would have to do much better than "Zionist loving Yid." He would sneer at such a feeble attempt. Instead you should attack his ghastly culinary tastes, his inability to identify good alcoholic beverages, and .. of course ... the beard. And the haircut. It's the truth that hurts.


23 October 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

This Act was passed under a Conservsative government , was it not ? Is the increasing criticism of the Act attributable to popular disillusionment with amendments therein - or more vigorous enforcement thereof ?

23 October 2012 at 10:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

, must agree with you about Avi's beard and haircut, not forgetting those boss eyes. Skid row, or what?

As my mum would say: "He looks likes something the cats jut dragged in!"

23 October 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, actually "Zionist-loving Yid" is a bit of a put-down, as it makes me seem like such a dabbler of an amateur. I'm a full-fledged, dyed-in-the-wool, "card-carrying" Zionist Yid.

Your jealousy is unbecoming, Carl. My magnificent hair, which my wife ordered me to trim a little recently (thus preventing my second attempt to form a ponytail)and my regal beard which has held its integrity for five years now (except for the order to cut back on what were becoming stately Salvador Dali moustaches) have survived many a challenge. They will survive yours. You know, Carl, you needn't feel inadequate and bitter in this day and age; comb-overs, toupees, the boldly shaved head, that can of spray for the shiny head you can see on late-night commercials, or the ubiquitous American ball-cap are all viable solutions for your predicament.

I will take the high road on your gratuitous insults of my culinary preferences except to remark that having again spent time in the US, I marvel at the astounding rate of chubbiness there seemingly caused by what to me appears ...from a safe, up-wind distance... as inedible livestock fodder marketed as "American cuisine." (Shudder)

23 October 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger IanCad said...


And the half has not been told.
You will never find a man who has had a beard for most of his life with a double chin.
Neither wattles, nor saggy eyes.
He will always be far more outgoing.
It does a man no good to look at himself in the mirror for several minutes each day while scraping and assaulting his face.
He will always think he looks better than he does.
Only ladies should do that.
A beard is a mulch for the skin. It affords protection from the elements. Lends its owner an air of confidence and authority.
All the men of the Bible had beards.
Why on earth would any man wish to shave??
Vanity, Vanity.

23 October 2012 at 15:32  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

re beards (and yes I do include my own facialy hirsute although cranially bald image in my avatar)

If the good Lord had intended men to have beards, He would have made hair grow on their faces.

On the subject of this thread, I am happy to defend Peter Tatchell's right to call me a hypocritical bigot and Richard Dawkins' right to call me an ignorant sceince denying cretin who has a fetish about a magic man in the sky etc in return for the right to call Tatchell a **** ******* ****** and Dawkins a ******* of *****. Not that I ever would of course, but is the liberty that counts.

If we don't stop this speech tyranny before it goes much further they will be coming for our Bibles and replacing them with a redacted 'Rainbow Testament' approved by peer review 'inclusive' theologians.

23 October 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hear, hear, IanCad! Finer words have not been spoken on defense of the noble beard on this thread. Regard as well, all yee bald-visaged face-scrapers here, the very ghost of our gracious host, His Grace, with his magnificent beard which lends him such serene dignity. And did not the Bard himself proclaim, "He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man?"

23 October 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed: If the good L-rd had intended men to have beards, He would have made hair grow on their faces.

LOL! I like.

23 October 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


you needn't feel inadequate and bitter in this day and age; comb-overs, toupees, the boldly shaved head, that can of spray for the shiny head you can see on late-night commercials, or the ubiquitous American ball-cap are all viable solutions for your predicament.

Au contraire! No such problem in my life. I just prefer that clean military kind of look. Disciplined. Defined. Well-ordered. No shaggy beard. No scruffy hair. And certainly no pony tail. AFR 35-10 didn't allow such nonsense. And please note that I threw some of that French stuff so you, being Canadian, would feel at home.

Besides, I know you secretly drink Coors Light. And you like it. It's time to come out of the closet, Avi. It's time to admit you that drink Coors Light, and that you are proud of it.


23 October 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

"I just prefer that clean military kind of look." Lucky for you the scraped look is acceptable in our day and age. Alexander the Great's father, Philip of Macedon, nearly took the sword to his own son when he discovered that he and his buddies were shaving to look like Athenians. Thought young Al had become an eromenos to an older soldier. Perhaps explains the tradition why captains retain beards while the sailors must shave.

Au contraire? Ha! Nice, but I'd like to hear you try and pronounce that. How's it in American? Owe-cone-trayer?

Besides, I know you secretly drink Coors Light. Tchah! That is totally unfair. I thought I could trust your gentleman's discretion. It was an accident and I was faultless. I was under the influence of too many le chayims at the time and was thirsty from all the salty herring. I thought I was drinking surely tasted like water...until someone pointed out it was Coors Lite. Never expected such to appear at a respectable Orthodox wedding in Toronto, but I think the bride's family were from Lakewood, NJ and they brought their strange customs with them. I tried to warn the bridegroom about the grievous error in judgment he was making, but people thought I was trying to be funny again. Or maybe it was at a bar mitzvah, in which case my heroics would have been quite hilarious, come to think of it.

23 October 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, and Carl, no doubt you watched the third elections debate? Quite astounding, I think, the way your current Commander in Chief nearly out-did Vice President Snickerdoodle with his comedic routine. Reset the benchmarks for presidential conduct, he did.

I'd say it's your duty to your country as a retired serviceman to contact the White House and inform the happy commune of community organizers and campus activists squatting there that actually, yes, horses are still used, as in Afghanistan; that infantrymen still carry bayonets for close combat; and that even those thingies which float on the water and from which planes take off and those other scary-looking things which go under the water still do need a sizable surface fleet of support combat and logistics vessels. How did you guys survive for four years with that merry crew at the nation's helm, btw? Never mind that, how did the world not devolve to hoardes of Huns? Gave us all a scare up here in happy Canuckistan. Be a good chap and don't forget to vote Carl ...November 6th, remember... make the nightmare go away, will ya?

23 October 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger John Magee said...


Was your last truck driving haul to the USA was that bad for you?

I guess it's always good to be home.

Lots of talk of food in your posts. You must have mentioned pork or bacon 8 or 10 times not including your quoting Corrigan. That was interesting.

When you mentioned Hungarian bacon that brings back warm summer evenings at my Hungarian wife's parents home cooking a bacon slab over a wood fire. The bacon slab is held high over the flames on a long metal fork. Slowly cooked until the bacon grease starts to drip then it is put on a large dish and thick rye bread dipped in the grease. Sliced tomatoes and onions on top of that and then a thick slice of the bacon. Delicious.

God bless pork and bacon!

Try it some time. God won't give a damn.

It looks like 80% of USA Jews will vote once again for Obama as they did in 2008.

Thanks a lot.

On the other hand polls indicate that over 65% of Roman Catholics and as many as 90% of Evangelical Protestants will vote for Romney. YEAH!

"... having again spent time in the US, I marvel at the astounding rate of chubbiness there seemingly caused by what to me appears ...from a safe, up-wind distance... as inedible livestock fodder marketed as "American cuisine." (Shudder)"

Chubby Americans eating "fodder"? What is the brand name I'd like to know. Spam? If you are hauling it it must be made in Canada so why is it called "American cusine"?

If you truly are a truck drver this is funny because this "American fodder" you haul by truck from Canada puts food on your table.

having traveled in the USA you must know that there is regional cooking here: New England, the Chesapeake, the South, Canjun in Louisiana, TexMex, Mexican in the Southwest, and other examples.

"chubbiness"...The snowbirds are flocking south down Interstate 79 from Ontario and when I see them geting gas at the exit stations or taking advantage of the rest stops they don't like any more or less svelt than Americans of their age who live in my small town. The only differencee I see is the license plates.

Over the past 30 years people everywhere eat more and get less exersize than past generations which is why we see more "chubby" people.

Next time I want to get your opinion of the "Price Tag" desecrations of Catholic and Protestant churches in Israel by Zionist Orthodox extremists. The latest example being their attack on the Roman Catholic Latrum Trappist Monastery in early September 2012 causing damage and the spray painting "Jesus is a Monkey "inside the church.

@ Inspector

Obama could never have been elected in 2008 without the white vote. Since blacks and Hispanics make up abut 22% of the USA population if all of them voted for Obama as 99% of blacks did that would obviously have not elected Obama. About 70% of Hispanics voted for Obama. That means whites had to vote for Obama in large numbers for him to win the election.

Blame the Obama catastrophe of the last four years on white voters.

24 October 2012 at 04:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


no doubt you watched the third elections debate?

No, I find no profit in listening to President Obama. It would simply cause anger and stress and elevated blood pressure. My voting decision was rather simple, and determined long ago. Is the Republican candidate an axe murderer/serial rapist/Libertarian? If the answer is 'No' then vote for the Republican. The Republicans could nominate an Elm tree with Dutch Elm disease and I would vote Republican.

Be a good chap and don't forget to vote Carl ...November 6th, remember... make the nightmare go away, will ya?

Be sure that I will do my small part to achieve this objective.


24 October 2012 at 05:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl Jacobs @ 05:47 wrote:

"Is the Republican candidate an axe murderer/serial rapist/Libertarian? If the answer is 'No' then vote for the Republican"

Perhaps is but a dismal reflection of my character that, when I neglect to cheer your many, of late, wonderful posts, I am nothing loth to jump to criticism.

Let us then reflect on some axe wielding rapists who were/are Libertarian.

Thomas Jefferson and George Mason.
Respectively, authors and advocates of the first and second tables of the trinity that is the magnificent
Constitution Of The United States Of America

John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Roger Williams, Patrick Henry.
Morning Stars of liberty.

Men of all classes, creeds and callings:
Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig Von Mises.

British politicians too often neglected today:
The Elder and Younger Pitts, George Canning, Robert Jenkinson.

Lord Acton whose dictum is probably the most quoted in the conservative lexicon.

A few more:
John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, James Bovard, Ron Unz.
The late Aaron Russo and Thomas Szasz.

Ron Paul.
The only candidate who invited the US electorate to again enter the broad, sunlit uplands of liberty.

24 October 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger IanCad said...

Third table.

24 October 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, fair and sensible answer...although mine at this time would be to vote for anything Republican with a measurable pulse in this election, including axe murderers, rapists and so on. But no elm trees; too hard to load on Air Force One. Proof positive that conservative opinion is not monolithic, but enjoys a wide spectrum of ideas and proposals and can be debated in a calm and civil manner. In all fairness though, although Mitt's selection was not universally acclaimed by all in the GOP, what with the hanging suspicion of being a RINO, I'm ready to wager that with the Tea Party's pressure and the new enlivened and engaged Republican base, Mitt will pleasantly surprise us all.

But you shouldn't be allowed to just turn away and to avoid looking at the anti-miracle of Hopey Changey in its full melt-down stage, Carl. What we have here is a teachable moment, one that must be passed down to the future generations even at the cost of raised blood pressure. Sacrifice for your country! And it's not too late to plunge into masochism, as the post-debate environment is a rich one as well. Obama is at this time in full assault mode, providing plenty of guffahs, cackles and giggles to his loyal base and prepping for a career as co-host on the Jon Stewart show. Days after the last debate, where he astounded America with his thigh-slapping theories about horses, bayonets and naval power, he's been going around repeating this one: "We had a severe outbreak last night...It was at least stage three Romnesia...I just want to go over with you some of the symptoms...because I want to make sure nobody in the surrounding area catches it." Tra-da-boom! I hope everyone in the whole country catches Barry's desperate zingers and governs himself accordingly.

24 October 2012 at 14:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Magee: At ease, soldier! Carl and me we be goofing around.

24 October 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Re in the pork- in my less than zealous phase, I ate, but didn't inhale is what I say to people today.

24 October 2012 at 15:47  
Blogger John Magee said...


I was in the Navy.

You know. Tying knots, bell bottom trousers, semaphore flag signalling, ships, Popeye, and most definately no long hair.

24 October 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger John Magee said...

If Romney wins he had better brace himself (he will) for a media crucifixion over the next four years worse than anything George Bush 43 endured during the years after September 11, 2001.

We've lived through four years with the most incpmpetent President the USA has ever had, who in the media's eyes, could do no wrong. A possible President Romney will do no right in liberal media's mind.

Of course if Romney has both the Congress and Senate he won't really care what the media says or does.

Romney's coming political Via Dolorosa, if he wins, will not be pleasant for him but he can handle it and all that comes his way. We will have a leader in the WH at last. A man not a boy.

A dream come true with a Romney win will be the possibility of his appointing as many as three Supreme Court Justices and that will allow conservatives to decide the direction of the USA for decades to come.

The possiblity that within a few years the consevatives might have the Presiency, both houses of Congress, and a secure majority in Supreme Court and the majority of govenors is just too much joy to possbibly comprehend.

Since I am an inveterate crepe hanger something will have to go wrong. This possiblity can't be true.

Perhaps these unbearable four years in the Obama desert may have been worth it after all.

There is the nagging fear the damage Obama and his crew has done to the CIA, FBI, the military and the State Department might take years to undo.

The only downside on November 6 if Romney wins is al-Queda will put into motion their already planned next 911. It will be a "go" for their cells in the USA to look at their instructions for their next attack and it will make 911 look like a Sunday school picnic.

Of course Mitt is no wimp and he even knows a how Navy "corpsmen" is correctly pronounced unlike the moron in chief in the WH today.

We will be safe in Mitts steel lined mittens.

24 October 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

It's true. I shamelessly juxtaposed Libertarians with criminals in order to slander Libertarianism. I may or may not have done so to be obnoxious and provocative to Libertarians. :) The modern Ayn Rand kind of Libertarian. The kind of Libertarian who seriously discusses dismantling the offensive military capability of the US. The kind of Libertarian who thinks the Wiki-leaks guy is a hero. To be specific, I was thinking of Ron Paul when I wrote those words. I would have voted for Obama before Ron Paul.


25 October 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

I think you confused me with IanCad.

That's the kind of mistake I usually make here not you. Please don't take over my position being called "confused" here. That's my privilidge due to advancing age.

Since you brought up Libertarians I have to say that Ron Paul had a few good points about domestic stuff but he was totally, absolutely. 100% wrong about international politics.

25 October 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I don't know why, but for some reason, I saw this video, and immediately thought of you.

Really Important Public Service Video


25 October 2012 at 05:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

IanCad & John Magee

Oops. [He said sheepishly]

Sorry about that, Chiefs.


25 October 2012 at 05:14  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl @ 00:39:

To address your points in reverse order let me offer a quote from the revered Patrick Henry:

"The liberties of the people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers are concealed from them"

Oh, to live in sturdier times when fear did not rule.

As to our offensive capabilities, let me suggest that there is an unfortunate tendency to equate expenditure with capability.
Much the same as seen in the field of education.
Utah spends the least and, in achievement is near the top.
Washington DC. spends most and is at the bottom.

To put the US military budget in perspective let me use again, as a comparison, the remarkable 42,000 mile Interstate Highway system.
This entire network, fundamental to the prosperity and security of the nation, at today's prices, could be replaced for two thirds of our annual military expenditure.

That we are still producing manned warplanes, aircraft carriers and tanks and maintaining an army of nearly a million personnel is not just evidence of sclerotic thinking but suggestive of an incestuous relationship between the politicians, the military, and the many manufacturers intent on perpetuating a totally obsolete system of defence.

Ron Paul is right.
The defence budget must be reviewed.

25 October 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger John Magee said...


Obama has reduced the number of USA Navy ships to a post WW I level

Of course we can afford to have fewer ships because of modern technology but he has weakend the Navy deliberately.

This, by a man who couldn't say Navy "corpsmen" (pronounced CORE men), five times in a speech before retired Naval officers.

I can't imagine the shock in the minds of these retired career Navy Officers when they heard Obama make this mistake.

25 October 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger IanCad said...

It's just as tough over here for Ex-Navy types.
However the nature of battles have changed. Technology marches on.

A parody on Nelson:

It’s over 200 years since Lord Nelson’s famous naval victory over the French and Spanish in the Battle of Trafalgar. To kick-start the anniversary celebrations, an actor dressed as Nelson posed for pictures on the River Thames at Greenwich. But before he was allowed to board an RNLI Lifeboat, safety officials made him wear a lifejacket over his 19th Century Admiral’s uniform.
How would Nelson have fared if he’d been subject to modern health and safety regulations?
You are now on the deck of the recently renamed British Flagship, HMS Appeasement.
Order the signal. Hardy.
Aye, aye, sir.
Hold on, that’s not what I dictated to the signal officer. What’s the meaning of this?
Sorry, sir?
England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledegook is this?


25 October 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

Contd:Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting “England” past the censors, lest it be considered racist.
Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.
Sorry, sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments.
In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle.
The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It’s part of the Government’s policy on binge drinking.
Good heavens. Hardy. I suppose we’d better get on with it. Full speed ahead.
I think you’ll find that there’s a 4 mph speed limit in this stretch of water.
Dammit, man, we are on the eve of the greatest sea fight in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow’s nest, please.
That won’t be possible, sir.
Health and Safety have closed the crow’s nest, sir. No harness. And they say that rope ladder doesn’t meet regulations. They won’t let anyone up there until proper scaffolding can be erected.
Then get me the ship’s carpenter without delay, Hardy.
He’s busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo’c’sle Admiral.
Wheelchair access? I’ve never heard anything so absurd.
Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled.
Differently abled? I’ve only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn’t rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card.
Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.
Whatever next? Give me a full sail. The salt spray beckons.
A couple of problems there, too, sir. Health and safety won’t let the crew up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don’t want anyone breathing in too much salt – haven’t you seen the adverts?
I’ve never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.
The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral.
What? This is mutiny.
It’s not that, sir. It’s just that they’re afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There are a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.
Then how are we to sink the French and the Spanish?
Actually, sir, we’re not.
We’re not?
No, sir. The French and Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn’t even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation.
But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.
I wouldn’t let the ship’s diversity co-ordinator hear you saying that sir. You’ll be up on a disciplinary.
You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King.
Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest, it’s the rules.
Don’t tell me – health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?
As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there’s a ban on corporal punishment.
What about sodomy?
I believe it’s to be encouraged sir.
In that case – kiss me Hardy.
Courtesy of Exeter Flotilla.

25 October 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Tony B said...

I thought it was "walking around with an offensive wife", in fact I'm sure it was..

25 October 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger John Magee said...


Very good.

"Flagship, HMS Appeasement"

To be amusing humor has to have an element of truth. This parody is reeks of it. I smiled more than a few times esepcially at the end.

Thank you for posting it.

25 October 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I am not talking about establishing the size of the US military relative to the needs of security. I am talking about physically removing the ability of the US military to conduct offensive war. That is the kind of nonsense that Libertarians cook up in their intellectual exercises at pretend governance, and Ron Paul stood for President from that party. He may have become a Republican to get elected, but he is still a Libertarian.


26 October 2012 at 04:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older