THE BBC BETRAYED ITS MANDATE
So what else is new in state broadcasting?
According to those polled by an ICM survey conducted on October 23rd and 24th, following the grilling of British National Party leader Nick Griffin on a BBC television show the previous day, fully one third of the 504 respondents support the BNP policy that “UK-born ethnic minorities should lose all benefits to pay for them to leave.” And two-thirds felt that the mainstream parties had no credible policies on immigration. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8324455.stm
Yet the BBC engineered a panel and a packed London audience that excluded such sentiments in what may be termed as a premeditated verbal lynching of Griffin and his party. It is ironic that the BBC and the stacked deck they presented on stage are no doubt stridently supportive of preferential hiring practices that would secure employment in every institution for ethnic or racial minorities in the proportion to their numbers in the general population. For it is obvious that neither they nor the political elite favour proportional representation for politically incorrect views. It may be argued that they discharged their democratic duty merely by having Griffin appear on a television “interview”. But an interview should not consist of one man facing the vitriolic and unanimous hostility of a mob, including the presenter. Rather, it should consist of an impartial moderator who referees a balanced exchange of ideas. What Nick Griffin said or did not say in the past should not be the exclusive fixation of an interviewer or those ranged against him. What he or his party say about the future in a broad range of policies is at least of equivalent interest.
In the fine tradition of state broadcasters like the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), the BBC betrayed its mandate. According to its own guidelines as articulated in 2001: “Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be open-minded, fair and show a respect for the truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or under represented on the BBC.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/index.shtml And clearly, the poll results from IMC research and the recent election of two BNP politicians, including Nick Griffin indicates that Griffin’s views constitute a “significant strand of thought” in British society. Call them odious, disgusting, vile or deceitful if you may, but given the evidence, you cannot call them uncommon or un-British. In fact a poll reported by the Daily Telegraph revealed that support for the BNP rose after Griffin’s inquisition, and some 22% are actually prepared to vote for the BNP. So the question then is, on what basis can the Welsh secretary or any other politician or commentator demand that in a democratic society a citizen cannot give voice to opinions that reflect those of one to two-thirds of the electorate? Proscribing views that one judges “racist”, “hateful” or un-British presumes that objective criteria exist for those sins and that those who can identify them are qualified to make those judgments. And rigging a debate so that those views cannot be presented in coherent and comprehensive way is tantamount to censorship. More than that, it is a presumptuous violation of the rights of those who should have the opportunity to hear proscribed views. In an authentic democracy, the people have a right to hear or read reputedly “racist” remarks and make their own judgments. If they are not to be trusted with that right, then elections are of dubious merit.
Whether Griffin’s contribution is helpful or not is a matter of opinion. Some of those who oppose the BNP say that the broadcast was beneficial in that it allowed people to see Griffin’s true colours as, in the words of Lord Carey, “a squalid racist”. Other opponents, including Carey, lamented that the BBC made a mistake and that the interview was a gift to the BNP. In my view, Griffin is to be credited for putting immigration on the front burner. Without the threat of losing support to the BNP, what incentive exists for any of the main parties to satisfy the wishes of the majority of Briton in this area?
It is however, very unfortunate that Griffin, and Enoch Powell before him, have framed the issue in racial terms, giving growthists the home field advantage of tapping into public antipathy to racial discrimination. The most critically relevant debate should be fought on the more neutral battleground of population growth and its impact on sustainability. That is, first and foremost, the discussion should revolve around the optimum number of citizens rather than their pigmentation or composition, and then on culture, as distinct from race, as it may or may not affect social cohesion or fertility rates. Culture matters, but numbers matter more, and race shouldn’t matter at all. Try getting the BBC, the CBC or the ABS to understand that.
Tim Murray
October 25/09
Sunday, October 25, 2009
KIWI PROFESSORS DEAD WRONG--the carbon footprint of an SUV is 11 times greater than a dog
KIWI PROFESSORS DEAD WRONG
The Carbon Footprint of an SUV is more than 11 times that of a dog
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale argue that dogs have such a large carbon footprint that they are twice as damaging as driving an SUV. Their recommendation? Give up pet ownership for less environmentally impactful and more edible proteins like rabbits, hamsters and fish. According to this logic, eating dogs would be climate-friendly. http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog
But according to Helmut Burkhardt, their calculations are dead wrong:
“I am afraid the numbers are out of wack. Here is a ‘Fermi Calculation’ , a rough estimate.
A car driven by 100 kW power for 100 h to cover 10 000 km would use 10 000 kWh/year.
A dog ‘driven’ by 100 W food power for 24 hours would use 2.4 kWh/day, or 876 kWh/year.”
In other words, an SUV costs more than eleven times as much energy as a dog. I personally think that if drivers traded their SUVs in for a rickshaw or sled led by a dog team, the EROI for dogs would be superior to the EROI for SUVs. And that is not factoring in the energy that dogs provide you in mental health benefits. In fact the EROI ratio for dogs is most probably better than for wives in that area. (Ask Mickey Rooney or Paul McCartney. Experiment: Lock your dog and your wife in the trunk (boot) of your car and walk away for an hour, then return and open it up. Which one is happier to see you?)
One option seldom considered is cannibalism, a proven instrument for those Polynesians who achieved a sustainable population for centuries. To test the market, I would suggest that Britain’s four million vegetarians be fed to the 57 million omnivores on that crowded island, who feeling as claustrophobic as they do, should be happy to digest and compact them. If butchered efficiently, British vegetarians could supply the protein needs of British meat-eaters for the best part of a year, and reduce carbon emissions in the bargain. Sir Paul McCartney could be served up on a buffet with baby seal meat just to kick off the campaign, and his estate could be seized by the government and its proceeds used to provide free condoms for every male on the planet --- a more cost-effective prophylactic against climate change than any budget for a transition to green technology. Perhaps Sir Bob Geldoff could be included in the menu too, thereby reducing the protein requirements of Africa that his philanthropy generates.
Tim Murray
October 25/09
The Carbon Footprint of an SUV is more than 11 times that of a dog
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale argue that dogs have such a large carbon footprint that they are twice as damaging as driving an SUV. Their recommendation? Give up pet ownership for less environmentally impactful and more edible proteins like rabbits, hamsters and fish. According to this logic, eating dogs would be climate-friendly. http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog
But according to Helmut Burkhardt, their calculations are dead wrong:
“I am afraid the numbers are out of wack. Here is a ‘Fermi Calculation’ , a rough estimate.
A car driven by 100 kW power for 100 h to cover 10 000 km would use 10 000 kWh/year.
A dog ‘driven’ by 100 W food power for 24 hours would use 2.4 kWh/day, or 876 kWh/year.”
In other words, an SUV costs more than eleven times as much energy as a dog. I personally think that if drivers traded their SUVs in for a rickshaw or sled led by a dog team, the EROI for dogs would be superior to the EROI for SUVs. And that is not factoring in the energy that dogs provide you in mental health benefits. In fact the EROI ratio for dogs is most probably better than for wives in that area. (Ask Mickey Rooney or Paul McCartney. Experiment: Lock your dog and your wife in the trunk (boot) of your car and walk away for an hour, then return and open it up. Which one is happier to see you?)
One option seldom considered is cannibalism, a proven instrument for those Polynesians who achieved a sustainable population for centuries. To test the market, I would suggest that Britain’s four million vegetarians be fed to the 57 million omnivores on that crowded island, who feeling as claustrophobic as they do, should be happy to digest and compact them. If butchered efficiently, British vegetarians could supply the protein needs of British meat-eaters for the best part of a year, and reduce carbon emissions in the bargain. Sir Paul McCartney could be served up on a buffet with baby seal meat just to kick off the campaign, and his estate could be seized by the government and its proceeds used to provide free condoms for every male on the planet --- a more cost-effective prophylactic against climate change than any budget for a transition to green technology. Perhaps Sir Bob Geldoff could be included in the menu too, thereby reducing the protein requirements of Africa that his philanthropy generates.
Tim Murray
October 25/09
Saturday, October 24, 2009
DOG WALKS OUT ON CHURCH SERMON--Was he making a Malthusian statement?
DOG WALKS OUT ON CHURCH SERMON
Was he making a Malthusian statement?
On Sunday, October 18th, 2009, my yellow Labrador Retriever, “Barney”, turned his back on Jesus and took four steps toward Eternal Damnation. For it was on that day in my small island community that the United Church of Canada opened its doors to dogs so that they could receive a blessing on what they designated as “St. Francis of Assisi Day”.
St. Francis, as you probably know, was an early pioneer of “Green Living”, a man who gave up all his wealth to the poor, dedicating his life the virtues of simplicity and the love of all of God’s creatures, including our beloved pets. He lived simply so that others could simply live, and thus was obviously not a favourite of the financial planning industry.
The minister, “Mimi”, made note of the fact that the letters in the word “dog” were the same as the letters for the word for our Lord “God”. (For dyslexic Christian dog-lovers, a kind of Holy Duality I suppose). This, she maintained, was no accident, for dogs were sent here to be our divine role-models. Their unconditional love for us showcased the unconditional love that we should give to our Holy Father. Her dearly departed dog, a beautiful young Dutch Sheppard named “Sarah”, treated her daughter like a god, and it was this example of uninhibited love and loyalty that strengthened their faith. Sarah had served a purpose in her brief life, and that was as a teacher.
Mimi then read biblical passages in memory of St. Francis, and then called my lab forward for a blessing. (This was perhaps disappointing for Barney, for as a lab he might have preferred baptism.)Until this point Barney had been lying passively at my feet in the front row, just ten feet from the minister. All were impressed by his decorum and his quiet veneration of the sacred venue, a small church almost a century old with an inviting stain glass window that allowed the mid-morning sun to highlight the glistening dark lacquered wainscoting and pews, and a spotless bright blue carpet that Barney didn’t dare stain.
When he was beckoned Barney perked his ears and fixed his gaze on her outstretched hand, believing that it might hold a communion wafer, until he apparently realized that this minister was affiliated to the wrong Christian denomination and that wafers were not on offer. So he remained stationary and skeptical, no doubt in the hope that she might sweeten the pot of friendship with something more substantial than a mere blessing. Eventually I had to stand up and remand him to her custody by leash. He then dutifully sat down beside her as she laid her hand upon him and gave him the Lord’s blessing, followed by the Lord’s prayer, which was recited by all those present, saving the dogs that is.
It was at this moment that I thought that Barney was amenable to moral instruction, but as the sermon began, he rolled over and ignored her. It had been my forlorn hope that his homosexual fantasies might be cured by prayer and bible study, but it soon became apparent that the prospect of redemption was not a sufficient incentive to dissuade him from following his wicked course. Finally, he grew restive and broke from my grasp, running down the aisle in hot pursuit of a (male) black poodle, “Inka”. When I separated them, he made for the door and flopped down in front of it, obviously positioned for the earliest exit. He was content to remain in his default position—that of a semi-comatose Sphinx---until the minister began talking about what Christ demanded of us in response to the world’s problems.
Her theme was that instead of blaming institutions, we should, by our personal conduct, lead by example, and thereby inspire others to follow our path. If we love the environment, we should re-cycle, consume less and strive to live as St. Francis did----simply. It was a message fully in concert with the culture and religion of the island, a syncretistic blend of mushy New Age feel-goodism, soft green environmentalism, Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism, with David Suzuki and the Delai Lama as god-heads forming a duet of denial. In short, the very antithesis of my ethical orientation.
It was when Mimi spoke of the global food crisis and how sharing our bounty and our love would address it, that Barney whined to be let out. He couldn’t take it anymore either. Unlike the humans present, he knew that he was a pack animal, and that as such, when you are presented with a feeding opportunity, you wolf it down and then subsequently share it as vomit with the pack. Teenagers display this instinct on occasion too, I have observed, with their ritual of fast food followed by strong drink.
It seems that Barney had silently absorbed my “lifeboat ethics” and knew instinctively that when there is not enough to go around, its family first, and that reducing his paw-print would not compensate for the ever expanding number of paws. It was at that moment that I had an epiphany: it was in his gesture of defiance that Barney was acting as my teacher, showing the way. He turned his back on Jesus, and pulled me like a sled dog back to toward The Gospel of St. Garrett of Hardin, and together we walked for hours in the forest where shafts of sunlight pierced through tall conifers to fall on maples of golden leaves which illuminated our passage. Heathens both, it seemed upon reflection fitting that in the same fashion as my late brother Al, my ashes will one day be scattered on Barney’s grave, to symbolize the fact that our respective species have exactly the same cosmological significance.
On that point, both Darwin and St. Francis would be in probable agreement.
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
October 18/09
Was he making a Malthusian statement?
On Sunday, October 18th, 2009, my yellow Labrador Retriever, “Barney”, turned his back on Jesus and took four steps toward Eternal Damnation. For it was on that day in my small island community that the United Church of Canada opened its doors to dogs so that they could receive a blessing on what they designated as “St. Francis of Assisi Day”.
St. Francis, as you probably know, was an early pioneer of “Green Living”, a man who gave up all his wealth to the poor, dedicating his life the virtues of simplicity and the love of all of God’s creatures, including our beloved pets. He lived simply so that others could simply live, and thus was obviously not a favourite of the financial planning industry.
The minister, “Mimi”, made note of the fact that the letters in the word “dog” were the same as the letters for the word for our Lord “God”. (For dyslexic Christian dog-lovers, a kind of Holy Duality I suppose). This, she maintained, was no accident, for dogs were sent here to be our divine role-models. Their unconditional love for us showcased the unconditional love that we should give to our Holy Father. Her dearly departed dog, a beautiful young Dutch Sheppard named “Sarah”, treated her daughter like a god, and it was this example of uninhibited love and loyalty that strengthened their faith. Sarah had served a purpose in her brief life, and that was as a teacher.
Mimi then read biblical passages in memory of St. Francis, and then called my lab forward for a blessing. (This was perhaps disappointing for Barney, for as a lab he might have preferred baptism.)Until this point Barney had been lying passively at my feet in the front row, just ten feet from the minister. All were impressed by his decorum and his quiet veneration of the sacred venue, a small church almost a century old with an inviting stain glass window that allowed the mid-morning sun to highlight the glistening dark lacquered wainscoting and pews, and a spotless bright blue carpet that Barney didn’t dare stain.
When he was beckoned Barney perked his ears and fixed his gaze on her outstretched hand, believing that it might hold a communion wafer, until he apparently realized that this minister was affiliated to the wrong Christian denomination and that wafers were not on offer. So he remained stationary and skeptical, no doubt in the hope that she might sweeten the pot of friendship with something more substantial than a mere blessing. Eventually I had to stand up and remand him to her custody by leash. He then dutifully sat down beside her as she laid her hand upon him and gave him the Lord’s blessing, followed by the Lord’s prayer, which was recited by all those present, saving the dogs that is.
It was at this moment that I thought that Barney was amenable to moral instruction, but as the sermon began, he rolled over and ignored her. It had been my forlorn hope that his homosexual fantasies might be cured by prayer and bible study, but it soon became apparent that the prospect of redemption was not a sufficient incentive to dissuade him from following his wicked course. Finally, he grew restive and broke from my grasp, running down the aisle in hot pursuit of a (male) black poodle, “Inka”. When I separated them, he made for the door and flopped down in front of it, obviously positioned for the earliest exit. He was content to remain in his default position—that of a semi-comatose Sphinx---until the minister began talking about what Christ demanded of us in response to the world’s problems.
Her theme was that instead of blaming institutions, we should, by our personal conduct, lead by example, and thereby inspire others to follow our path. If we love the environment, we should re-cycle, consume less and strive to live as St. Francis did----simply. It was a message fully in concert with the culture and religion of the island, a syncretistic blend of mushy New Age feel-goodism, soft green environmentalism, Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism, with David Suzuki and the Delai Lama as god-heads forming a duet of denial. In short, the very antithesis of my ethical orientation.
It was when Mimi spoke of the global food crisis and how sharing our bounty and our love would address it, that Barney whined to be let out. He couldn’t take it anymore either. Unlike the humans present, he knew that he was a pack animal, and that as such, when you are presented with a feeding opportunity, you wolf it down and then subsequently share it as vomit with the pack. Teenagers display this instinct on occasion too, I have observed, with their ritual of fast food followed by strong drink.
It seems that Barney had silently absorbed my “lifeboat ethics” and knew instinctively that when there is not enough to go around, its family first, and that reducing his paw-print would not compensate for the ever expanding number of paws. It was at that moment that I had an epiphany: it was in his gesture of defiance that Barney was acting as my teacher, showing the way. He turned his back on Jesus, and pulled me like a sled dog back to toward The Gospel of St. Garrett of Hardin, and together we walked for hours in the forest where shafts of sunlight pierced through tall conifers to fall on maples of golden leaves which illuminated our passage. Heathens both, it seemed upon reflection fitting that in the same fashion as my late brother Al, my ashes will one day be scattered on Barney’s grave, to symbolize the fact that our respective species have exactly the same cosmological significance.
On that point, both Darwin and St. Francis would be in probable agreement.
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
October 18/09
The Good Shepherd Is Calling Me Home
The Good Shepherd is Calling me Home
I was a sheep who lost his way but now the Good Shepherd is calling me home.
At last, at long last, I have found it. After decades of aimless wandering, of searching for answers to unanswerable questions, I broke down, fell on my knees and begged for forgiveness. Then I invited Charles Darwin into my heart. It was at that moment that I surrendered my fate to His will. In return He has given me the strength I needed to roll over and surrender to my fate as an inconsequential member of a doomed species on a doomed planet in a universe that will implode and compress everything into an infinitesimally small hole. I think cosmologists are calling it “smart growth”. High density living—an environmentalist’s dream---will finally be realized.
My Lord Darwin made me realize that like the rest of humanity, I am at a crossroads. One road leads to my imminent extinction, while the other leads to total despair. I know that Charles Darwin will inspire me to make the right choice. I feel rejuvenated, born again. With a renewed sense of meaninglessness and lack of purpose, I feel impelled to go out in the world and share the Good News that there is no hope, no durable legacy. All of my good works and all the artifacts of civilization will be reduced to nothing. The pyramids, the Great Wall of China, the Mona Lisa and everything I said to my Aunt Monica will be no more and no evidence will exist that they actually existed.. Ground to dust and incinerated by the supernova to come. That’s if a thermonuclear war, another K 2 event, climate change or peak everything doesn’t get to us first. We will take our place in the fossil record of failed prototypes, and then even those imprints will be wiped from memory by a cataclysmic event.
Yes, it is all beginning to make no sense to me now. Everything is as clear as mud. My life has served no good (or bad) purpose. And neither has yours either, you miserable and insignificant worm---- so relax and feel at one with an eventually collapsing universe beyond your pitifully feeble comprehension.
Hallelujah, peace at last, peace at last. Thank an imaginary God in heaven--- peace at last!
Tim Murray
October 23/09
PS Unfortunately my evangelism will need funding. I am not interested in your money, so don’t bother to forward any of it to Box 433, Hamilton, Bermuda. I will repeat that, don’t send your money to Box 433, Hamilton, Bermuda. But I should point out that Darwin takes Visa or Master Card, and He will be temporarily resident at the above address.
©copyright 2009 TM
I was a sheep who lost his way but now the Good Shepherd is calling me home.
At last, at long last, I have found it. After decades of aimless wandering, of searching for answers to unanswerable questions, I broke down, fell on my knees and begged for forgiveness. Then I invited Charles Darwin into my heart. It was at that moment that I surrendered my fate to His will. In return He has given me the strength I needed to roll over and surrender to my fate as an inconsequential member of a doomed species on a doomed planet in a universe that will implode and compress everything into an infinitesimally small hole. I think cosmologists are calling it “smart growth”. High density living—an environmentalist’s dream---will finally be realized.
My Lord Darwin made me realize that like the rest of humanity, I am at a crossroads. One road leads to my imminent extinction, while the other leads to total despair. I know that Charles Darwin will inspire me to make the right choice. I feel rejuvenated, born again. With a renewed sense of meaninglessness and lack of purpose, I feel impelled to go out in the world and share the Good News that there is no hope, no durable legacy. All of my good works and all the artifacts of civilization will be reduced to nothing. The pyramids, the Great Wall of China, the Mona Lisa and everything I said to my Aunt Monica will be no more and no evidence will exist that they actually existed.. Ground to dust and incinerated by the supernova to come. That’s if a thermonuclear war, another K 2 event, climate change or peak everything doesn’t get to us first. We will take our place in the fossil record of failed prototypes, and then even those imprints will be wiped from memory by a cataclysmic event.
Yes, it is all beginning to make no sense to me now. Everything is as clear as mud. My life has served no good (or bad) purpose. And neither has yours either, you miserable and insignificant worm---- so relax and feel at one with an eventually collapsing universe beyond your pitifully feeble comprehension.
Hallelujah, peace at last, peace at last. Thank an imaginary God in heaven--- peace at last!
Tim Murray
October 23/09
PS Unfortunately my evangelism will need funding. I am not interested in your money, so don’t bother to forward any of it to Box 433, Hamilton, Bermuda. I will repeat that, don’t send your money to Box 433, Hamilton, Bermuda. But I should point out that Darwin takes Visa or Master Card, and He will be temporarily resident at the above address.
©copyright 2009 TM
Friday, October 23, 2009
HOW TO TELL CANADIANS FROM AMERICANS: A Guide Book for the Unwary
How To Tell Canadians From Americans
A Guide Book for the Unwary
Too many people in the Commonwealth, and outside of it as well, fail to differentiate between Canadians and Americans. Canadians find that very insulting. I know I do.
It must be conceded though that, from afar, the Canadian English dialect is not unalike many American dialects to the untrained ear, and to those not intimately acquainted with North American life our conduct and appearance would indeed seem indistinguishable from Americans. Sure, Americans drink watered-down beer, play boring 4-down football, don’t live for ice hockey, say “huh” instead of “eh” and don’t know what an adverb is. But other than that, we blend in. Especially when a Canadian becomes a movie star or a comedian. Then to Americans, he always was an American. Nevertheless, I would assert that there is a distinctive Canadian personality, and it can be evidenced by our respective attitudes to freedom and national pride. Attitudes that can be illustrated by contrasting the following statements:
American: “Give me liberty or give me death.” (Patrick Henry)
Canadian: “Give me an entitlement or I will vote you out of office.”
American: (Quoting Voltaire) “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Canadian: “I don’t agree with what you have to say so take me off your email list.”
American: “It’s a First Amendment issue”.
Canadian: “It’s a Human Rights issue.”
American: “I want to be free.”
Canadian: “I want to be safe.”
American: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Canadian: “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
American: “God helps those who help themselves.”
Canadian: “I need government funding for this.”
CNN (American): “We welcome your views,”
CBC (Canadian): “We welcome your views but we will make damn sure no one else will hear them.”
American: “Everyone has a right to their day in court.”
Canadian: “Send everyone to Kangaroo Court (The Human Rights Tribunal) and watch the defendants file for bankruptcy while the taxpayers pick up the complainants’ costs.”
American: “I can’t argue with you there man, I think you’ve made a good point”.
Canadian: “Racist!”
American: (Quoting Descartes) “I think, therefore I am.”
Canadian: “It must be true, I heard it on the CBC this morning.”
American (Quoting JFK) “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge truth and falsehood in an open market of ideas is a nation afraid of its people.”
Canadian: (Quoting any Canadian politician) “We can’t talk about immigration because there are too many bigots out there. “
American: (Quoting Thomas Jefferson): “The only school for liberty is liberty”
Canadian: “You can’t have freedom without responsibility. The people must be educated.” (by the CBC of course).
American: “Let’s put this question to a referendum” (ie. a proposition or initiative).
Canadian: (Quoting Edmund Burke) “A member of parliament owes his constituents not his opinion but his good judgment (ie. the good judgment of the party whip).” Modern translation: “Government knows best”.
American: “Let it all hang out”
Canadian: “This editor will not accept submissions that are racist, sexist, homophobic. ethnocentric, or disrespectful to transgendered dwarfs who are differently abled.”
American: “The Second Amendment guarantees the First Amendment.”
Canadian: “Guns kill people.” (Matches cause arson).
American: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.
Canadian: “If guns are outlawed, criminals won’t use them, because it would be against the law for them to do so.”
American postman: “Through rain, sleet or hail, the mail will always get through”
Canadian postman: “That’s not in the contract.”
American (firefighter): “Get the hell out of here NOW! MOVE IT!”
Canadian (firefighter): “ Uh, ahem….Excuse me sir, but could you possibly consider forgetting about saving your CD collection and leaving your house rather imminently, if that is at all possible? I am sorry if I am offending you but I do think you might be negligent in putting your possessions above the safety of your children. Unless your cultural values clash with mine, that is, then of course you are perfectly within your right to ignore my advice and practice your customs which I will celebrate at your funeral service as having enriched my life. I think we can negotiate a peaceful solution to our differences here, if we are sensitive to them. I am sorry to have to convey this information in English, but all 52 of our translators are presently preoccupied, and our fire brigade is not yet inclusive of the entire United Nations whose absence must be a result of systemic racism and not the fact that most foreign-born applicants are 90 pound weaklings who can’t navigate 5 steps up or down a ladder with anything heavier than a 5 kilogram bag of sugar on their backs.”
American: “Hello, this is customer service, can I help you?”
Canadian: “ Yeah, this is customer service but I’m on my coffee break right now…can you phone back in another half-hour maybe?”
Customer then demands, “Let me speak to your manager. Hello, are you the manager”?
Canadian manager replies: تعلم اللغة العربية
Canadian customer answers, “I am sorry sir, I didn’t mean to offend you by speaking to you in one of our official languages, or in a communication style that affronts your cultural sensibilities. May I offer an apology for all the historical wrongs that were committed by people with my skin pigmentation long before I was born but whose actions I am nevertheless responsible for? Would a generous compensation package to accompany my groveling English-Canadian apology heal the scars of the trauma that my phone call has put you through? I don’t understand Arabic yet, but I did make out the words “Human Rights Tribunal”. I must congratulate you sir, on your ambition and success in acquiring precisely those words in our language which will allow for your smooth integration into our society. You have met me halfway, so now it is up to me to bow down to your great prophet, Muhammad. Allah Akbar and have a nice day!” Then he hangs up the phone, and mutters bitterly, “That goddam camel-pumper!”, and then reflexively looks over his shoulder in panic that someone overheard him or the Thought Police had planted a bug in his room. Now that’s nation-building!
American customer’s response: “Look buddy, the language here is English, get it? You either serve me in English and to my satisfaction or I’m getting a refund and taking my business elsewhere. Do you hear me Bin Laden? And BTW, I want to see Christmas decorations up in your store this December. Those are our traditions and you knew that coming in.”
Tim Murray,
October 18/09
A Guide Book for the Unwary
Too many people in the Commonwealth, and outside of it as well, fail to differentiate between Canadians and Americans. Canadians find that very insulting. I know I do.
It must be conceded though that, from afar, the Canadian English dialect is not unalike many American dialects to the untrained ear, and to those not intimately acquainted with North American life our conduct and appearance would indeed seem indistinguishable from Americans. Sure, Americans drink watered-down beer, play boring 4-down football, don’t live for ice hockey, say “huh” instead of “eh” and don’t know what an adverb is. But other than that, we blend in. Especially when a Canadian becomes a movie star or a comedian. Then to Americans, he always was an American. Nevertheless, I would assert that there is a distinctive Canadian personality, and it can be evidenced by our respective attitudes to freedom and national pride. Attitudes that can be illustrated by contrasting the following statements:
American: “Give me liberty or give me death.” (Patrick Henry)
Canadian: “Give me an entitlement or I will vote you out of office.”
American: (Quoting Voltaire) “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Canadian: “I don’t agree with what you have to say so take me off your email list.”
American: “It’s a First Amendment issue”.
Canadian: “It’s a Human Rights issue.”
American: “I want to be free.”
Canadian: “I want to be safe.”
American: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Canadian: “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
American: “God helps those who help themselves.”
Canadian: “I need government funding for this.”
CNN (American): “We welcome your views,”
CBC (Canadian): “We welcome your views but we will make damn sure no one else will hear them.”
American: “Everyone has a right to their day in court.”
Canadian: “Send everyone to Kangaroo Court (The Human Rights Tribunal) and watch the defendants file for bankruptcy while the taxpayers pick up the complainants’ costs.”
American: “I can’t argue with you there man, I think you’ve made a good point”.
Canadian: “Racist!”
American: (Quoting Descartes) “I think, therefore I am.”
Canadian: “It must be true, I heard it on the CBC this morning.”
American (Quoting JFK) “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge truth and falsehood in an open market of ideas is a nation afraid of its people.”
Canadian: (Quoting any Canadian politician) “We can’t talk about immigration because there are too many bigots out there. “
American: (Quoting Thomas Jefferson): “The only school for liberty is liberty”
Canadian: “You can’t have freedom without responsibility. The people must be educated.” (by the CBC of course).
American: “Let’s put this question to a referendum” (ie. a proposition or initiative).
Canadian: (Quoting Edmund Burke) “A member of parliament owes his constituents not his opinion but his good judgment (ie. the good judgment of the party whip).” Modern translation: “Government knows best”.
American: “Let it all hang out”
Canadian: “This editor will not accept submissions that are racist, sexist, homophobic. ethnocentric, or disrespectful to transgendered dwarfs who are differently abled.”
American: “The Second Amendment guarantees the First Amendment.”
Canadian: “Guns kill people.” (Matches cause arson).
American: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.
Canadian: “If guns are outlawed, criminals won’t use them, because it would be against the law for them to do so.”
American postman: “Through rain, sleet or hail, the mail will always get through”
Canadian postman: “That’s not in the contract.”
American (firefighter): “Get the hell out of here NOW! MOVE IT!”
Canadian (firefighter): “ Uh, ahem….Excuse me sir, but could you possibly consider forgetting about saving your CD collection and leaving your house rather imminently, if that is at all possible? I am sorry if I am offending you but I do think you might be negligent in putting your possessions above the safety of your children. Unless your cultural values clash with mine, that is, then of course you are perfectly within your right to ignore my advice and practice your customs which I will celebrate at your funeral service as having enriched my life. I think we can negotiate a peaceful solution to our differences here, if we are sensitive to them. I am sorry to have to convey this information in English, but all 52 of our translators are presently preoccupied, and our fire brigade is not yet inclusive of the entire United Nations whose absence must be a result of systemic racism and not the fact that most foreign-born applicants are 90 pound weaklings who can’t navigate 5 steps up or down a ladder with anything heavier than a 5 kilogram bag of sugar on their backs.”
American: “Hello, this is customer service, can I help you?”
Canadian: “ Yeah, this is customer service but I’m on my coffee break right now…can you phone back in another half-hour maybe?”
Customer then demands, “Let me speak to your manager. Hello, are you the manager”?
Canadian manager replies: تعلم اللغة العربية
Canadian customer answers, “I am sorry sir, I didn’t mean to offend you by speaking to you in one of our official languages, or in a communication style that affronts your cultural sensibilities. May I offer an apology for all the historical wrongs that were committed by people with my skin pigmentation long before I was born but whose actions I am nevertheless responsible for? Would a generous compensation package to accompany my groveling English-Canadian apology heal the scars of the trauma that my phone call has put you through? I don’t understand Arabic yet, but I did make out the words “Human Rights Tribunal”. I must congratulate you sir, on your ambition and success in acquiring precisely those words in our language which will allow for your smooth integration into our society. You have met me halfway, so now it is up to me to bow down to your great prophet, Muhammad. Allah Akbar and have a nice day!” Then he hangs up the phone, and mutters bitterly, “That goddam camel-pumper!”, and then reflexively looks over his shoulder in panic that someone overheard him or the Thought Police had planted a bug in his room. Now that’s nation-building!
American customer’s response: “Look buddy, the language here is English, get it? You either serve me in English and to my satisfaction or I’m getting a refund and taking my business elsewhere. Do you hear me Bin Laden? And BTW, I want to see Christmas decorations up in your store this December. Those are our traditions and you knew that coming in.”
Tim Murray,
October 18/09
By Subsisting on Air, We can DOUBLE our populationh
By Subsisting on Air, We can DOUBLE our population
Proponents of 'green living" tell me that by adopting spartan habits and living like Ghandi, we could make room for many more billions of human beings. Makes a lot of sense. Squeeze together more tightly so that more people can fill in the gap. Then repeat the process ad infinitum. But how could we feed such a population? Vegan proselytizers argue that we could do that by abstaining from meat consumption, thereby freeing up more resources to feed more people, who of course, will breed more people who will in turn inflict even greater ecological damage than ever before. Gotta love those efficiency paradoxes! But why stop at veganism? Why not a permanent fast, modeled on the lifestyle of cultists who claim to be drawing nourishment exclusively from oxygen?
Perhaps we could become a race of 15 billion “breatharians” who simply subsist on air in a world where thirst is decoupled from water use and hunger is decoupled from food use. As our population grows, so grows the pool of our ideas. As Julian Simon hypothesized, the law of averages would dictate that twice the number of people would double our chance of finding a genius who could invented a technology that would resurrect extinct species and replenish the soil without fossil fuel fertilizers. Failing that, we could experience a decoupling of our temporal existence entirely from a new extemporal life as disembodied spirits. A thermonuclear war over the desperate competition for scarce resources, the collapse of biodiversity services or searing temperature rises would do that for us. Freed from our earthly moorings, we would then be free from all ecological constraints, a state of being which growthists have already attained---in their imagination. The sky is the limit!
Tim Murray
Proponents of 'green living" tell me that by adopting spartan habits and living like Ghandi, we could make room for many more billions of human beings. Makes a lot of sense. Squeeze together more tightly so that more people can fill in the gap. Then repeat the process ad infinitum. But how could we feed such a population? Vegan proselytizers argue that we could do that by abstaining from meat consumption, thereby freeing up more resources to feed more people, who of course, will breed more people who will in turn inflict even greater ecological damage than ever before. Gotta love those efficiency paradoxes! But why stop at veganism? Why not a permanent fast, modeled on the lifestyle of cultists who claim to be drawing nourishment exclusively from oxygen?
Perhaps we could become a race of 15 billion “breatharians” who simply subsist on air in a world where thirst is decoupled from water use and hunger is decoupled from food use. As our population grows, so grows the pool of our ideas. As Julian Simon hypothesized, the law of averages would dictate that twice the number of people would double our chance of finding a genius who could invented a technology that would resurrect extinct species and replenish the soil without fossil fuel fertilizers. Failing that, we could experience a decoupling of our temporal existence entirely from a new extemporal life as disembodied spirits. A thermonuclear war over the desperate competition for scarce resources, the collapse of biodiversity services or searing temperature rises would do that for us. Freed from our earthly moorings, we would then be free from all ecological constraints, a state of being which growthists have already attained---in their imagination. The sky is the limit!
Tim Murray
"SMART GROWTH" A TEMPORARY SOLUTION AT BEST
“SMART GROWTH” A TEMPORARY SOLUTION AT BEST
The prime cause of the affordable-housing shortage, long commutes and worsening traffic in the Bay area and elsewhere is the "incessant population growth," writes veteran of Earth Day 1971,B. Meredith Burke in the San Francisco Chronicle. Calling even the best "smart growth" planning a temporary solution, he says that the only way to stop sprawl and ensure sufficient affordable housing is to halt population growth. 8/1/1998
So how do we stop population growth. Birth control or border control? BOTH.
The prime cause of the affordable-housing shortage, long commutes and worsening traffic in the Bay area and elsewhere is the "incessant population growth," writes veteran of Earth Day 1971,B. Meredith Burke in the San Francisco Chronicle. Calling even the best "smart growth" planning a temporary solution, he says that the only way to stop sprawl and ensure sufficient affordable housing is to halt population growth. 8/1/1998
So how do we stop population growth. Birth control or border control? BOTH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
