Don’t annoy a dragon, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup
Telling Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan president, to shut up has made King Juan Carlos of Spain a YouTube and mobile phone ringtone hit. The phrase “why don’t you shut up?” have also made it onto mugs and t-shirts. It is being downloaded in Venezuala as a form of protest:
We understand. It’s something a lot of us would like to tell many of our political leaders too.
An adaption on the ‘man bites dog’ storyline… and a step or so stranger than dog shoots man. But, seriously, why would someone marry an animal? It’s not like it can result in a fruitful relationship, or even consummation - let alone kids!
The suggestion by their Prime Minister that New Zealand should remove the Union flag from their national flag has put the country in a “flap” [boom boom!]. The idea is that removing the Union flag from the top left corner of the flag would “New Zealandise ” it. But would it really? No. All it would do is make it almost meaningless.
If they want to change it, they should do so fully - take the Canadian flag. They went from the Canadian Red Ensign to the Maple Leaaf flag we know today. New Zealand should, if they make any change at all, go from the defaced Blue Ensign they currently use to the simple, but effective, and New Zealandish [it's a word if I say it is] symbol used by the All Blacks - a silver fern on a black background.
The idea that changing the flag would cause them to forget their British traditions is utter bollocks. Just rubbish. They have history books and history teachers, after all! A flag does not make a nation, but a nation makes a flag. A flag does not matter - it is nothing but a bit of brightly-coloured fabric - unless it is given meaning by the people of that nation.
If the people of New Zealand want a different, more “New Zealandish” flag, then they should have one. But is it really worth bothering? That’s up to the New Zealanders.
Source: The Telegraph
Eugh.
Is the title of this post libel? Could I be charged with it? If I was in Poland, yes, and I could also face up to three years in prison:
Calling the President a “penis” and linking to his website with that word is hardly libel, and certainly isn’t worthy of a jail term.
Poland is supposed to be a democracy, and as such calling the President a penis shouldn’t really matter. He can call the President a penis if he wants to, in the same way that I can call Gordon Brown a penis - and there shouldn’t be any fear of prosecution for doing so.
Democracy means being able to insult those who lead the country if we want to. They govern us with our consent, not the other way round. We have the right to insult our political leaders - especially with such mild insults as “penis”.
Source: The Telegraph
I’m never going to be able to do the washing up again…
Whilst the conversation above is fictional, Nepal Airlines did sacrifice two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu god of sky protection, after technical problems found in an aircraft. It then successfully completed it’s flight.
Should any books be banned?
“The Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers, says Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders…
The call to treat the Koran in the same way as Adolf Hitler’s biography, which has been banned by the Dutch for over 60 years, is the latest in a long line of Islam controversies sparked by Mr Wilders, who lives under tight security after murder attempts by suspected Islamist terrorists.” (The Telegraph)
Comparing the Koran, a religious text, to Mein Kampf is a direct attempt to cast Islam as a fascist and dictatorial religion, a fact belied by the large number of “moderate” Muslims, and the large number of Islamic religious leaders, with no central authority figure - unlike most other “mainstream” religions. You could also claim that the Bible encourages [or at least has caused] murder, such as the witch hunts of Early Modern Europe. But I have absolutely no intention of making my argument on this basis. Instead I wish to ask this question: What are books?
Books are the repositiory of thought in a written and printed form. They offer text in a way that can be perused and interpreted by the individual. They do not dictate what an individual can or should do. You can, and should, read books from as many political views as possible. I have read Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto, but I am by no means a Communist, or even share any of their views. I’ve read Hobbes, Burke, Rousseau, and Locke too. A book does not, and cannot, make a person do anything. It can, and they do, offer excuses for people to do and believe things, but they do not give people views.
Why should any book be banned because it esposes unconventional views, or support for something - anything - we find reprehensible nowadays? This is censorship, and something which we are supposed to be above in this day and age. Unless a book is nothing more than a hate-filled invective, on what possible basis could, or should, it be banned? The principles of freedom of speech and freedom of press should mean that few, if any, books are banned.
I have read neither the Koran nor Mein Kampf - which is, by all accounts, a boring and stodgy read - but I can see no basis for the banning of either of them. No books should be banned on the basis that Wilders is claiming, or any other. Like Tom Paine points out, it is rather ironic that the leader of the “Freedom Party” should call for the banning of a book. I can see absolutely no reason why the Koran should be banned anywhere - and the same for Mein Kampf. Like making Holocaust denial a crime, it is just wrong. They don’t need to be banned, just ridiculed.
Source: The Telegraph
“A couple in New Zealand is planning to call their newborn son Superman after officials rejected their original choice of 4Real…
The name might sound more like a comedian’s catchphrase or a fruit juice, but the Wheatons were deadly serious.
Sadly for them, the authorities in New Zealand did not share their enthusiasm for the unusual - their choice was rejected by the country’s registrar of births, deaths and marriages.
The rules state that first names starting with a number are not allowed.” (BBC)
Poor, poor, kid. Unless he is actually an alien from Krypton, naming him Superman is just cruel. Even Superman’s name was actually Clark Kent! What amazed me was this line at the end of the article: “In the past [NZ officials] have had to intervene to stop parents naming their offspring Satan and Adolf Hitler.” Why, just why, would someone want to give their kid a name like that?!
“A university in Venezuela is using a novel method to take books into remote communities and encourage people to read…This is a brilliant initiative, and an excellent way to get literature to those who otherwise would be unable to get hold of any. I also just love the concept of a book mule [or biliomula]. Just fantastic, and, whilst amusing to me, shows how much we take for granted in the modern world.
The idea of loading mules with books and taking them into the mountain villages was started by the University of Momboy, a small institution that prides itself on its community-based initiatives and on doing far more than universities in Venezuela are required to do by law.” (BBC)
Recent Comments:
Favourites:
