Create Your Collage
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Create Your Collage
Create Your Collage
Monday, April 20, 2009
The French Army...
As France rejoins NATO, a humorous reminder of why we never missed
them
By Marcus Dunk
With typical flamboyance and fanfare, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy this week announced that France is to rejoin Nato's military
command after 40 years of self-imposed exile.
It was in 1966 that President Charles de Gaulle pulled out of the
heart of the Nato alliance, claiming that belonging to the Nato
military command undermined French independence and sovereignty.
Yet while its allies in the alliance have publicly welcomed this
return to the fold, a fundamental question seems to have been
ignored: do we actually want the French back?
Since World War II, the French and its army have been seen by many
as standard-bearers for surrender, cowardice and military
ineptitude.
But at least they've made us laugh. Here's a selection of
morale-boosting jokes and quips about the people so memorably
described in The Simpsons TV series as the cheese-eating surrender
monkeys...
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The army.
How can you recognise a French veteran?
Sunburned armpits.
Why are there so many tree-lined boulevards in France?
Germans like to march in the shade.
Why did it take Germany three days to conquer France in World War
II?
Because it was raining.
Why did the French give America the Statue of Liberty?
Because she has only one arm raised.
Why do the French get more votes in the U.N.?
They vote with both hands.
Why is the French fighter plane called the Mirage?
It doesn't exist..
Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?
Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender.
What does 'Maginot' mean in German?
Welcome!
Why is the French Foreign Legion the only decent fighting force in
the whole French Army?
Because it's made up of foreigners.
What is the most useful thing in the French Army?
A rear-view mirror, so they can see the war.
Why does Nike like the French Army?
Because in wartime they are the biggest buyers of running shoes.
Why did the French celebrate their World Cup in 1998 so wildly?
It was their first time they won anything without outside help.
Why do the French have glass bottom boats in their Navy?
To see all their other ships.
What did the mayor of Paris say to the German army as they entered
the city in World War II?
'Table for 100,000, monsieur?'
Why are the French afraid of war?
You would be, too, if you had never won one.
How do you stop a French army on horseback?
Turn off the carousel.
What's the best thing about being French?
You can surrender at the beginning of the war and somebody else will
win it for you.
'I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French
one behind me.'
General George S. Patton.
And the best one...
A long time ago, the British and French were at war. During one
battle, the French captured an English major. They took the major to
their headquarters and a French general began to question him.
The French general asked: 'Why do you English officers all wear red
coats? Don't you know the red material makes you easy targets for us
to shoot?'
In his debonair English way, the major informed the general that the
reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot,
the blood won't show, and the men they are leading won't panic.
And that is why from that day to now, all French army officers wear
brown pants.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
And thats when the fight started...
I asked my wife, "Where do you want to go for our anniversary?"It warmed my heart to see her face melt in sweet appreciation. "Somewhere I haven't been in a long time!" she said.So I suggested, "How about the kitchen?" And that's when the fight started....
Saturday morning I got up early, quietly dressed, made my lunch, grabbed the dog, and slipped quietly into the garage.I hooked up the boat up to the truck, and proceeded to back out into a torrential downpour.The wind was blowing 50 mph, so I pulled back into the garage, turned on the radio, and discovered that the weather would be bad all day.I went back into the house, quietly undressed, and slipped back into bed.I cuddled up to my wife's back, now with a different anticipation, and whispered, 'The weather out there is terrible.'My loving wife of 10 years replied, 'Can you believe my stupid husband is out fishing in that?'And then the fight started ...
A man and a woman were asleep like two innocent babies.Suddenly, at 3 o'clock in the morning, a loud noise came from outside.The woman, bewildered, jumped up from the bed and yelled at the man 'Holy Shit'. That must be my husband!'So the man jumped out of the bed; scared and naked jumped out the window.He smashed himself on the
ground, ran through a thorn bush and to his car as fast as he could go. A few minutes later he returned and went up to the bedroom and screamed at the woman, 'I AM your husband! ' The woman yelled back, 'Yeah, then why were you running?'And then the fight started.....
I tried to talk my wife into buying a case of Miller Light for $14.95.Instead, she bought a jar of cold cream for $7.95.I told her the beer would make her look better at night than the cold cream.And then the fight started....
My wife sat down on the couch next to me as I was flipping channels.She asked, 'What's on TV?'I said, 'Dust.' And then the fight started...
Free Speech and Religion
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Amazing Anagrams
The Incredibles
Tony Blair | = | Only a Brit |
Hansie Cronje | = | A sincere John |
A Telephone Girl | = | Repeating "Hello" |
Debit card | = | Bad credit |
Dame Agatha Christie | = | I am a death case, right? |
Conversation | = | Voices rant on |
Heavy rain | = | Hire a Navy |
Statue of Liberty | = | Built to stay free |
Stone Age | = | Stage One |
Anagram Synonyms?
Animosity | = | Is No Amity |
Dormitory | = | Dirty Room |
Desperation | = | A Rope Ends It |
Evangelist | = | Evil's Agent |
The Morse Code | = | Here Come Dots |
Slot Machines | = | Cash Lost in 'em |
Mother-in-law | = | Woman Hitler |
Punishment | = | Nine thumps |
A Shoplifter | = | Has to pilfer |
Snooze Alarms | = | Alas! No More Z's |
Alec Guinness | = | Genuine Class |
Semolina | = | Is No Meal |
The Public Art Galleries | = | Large Picture Halls, I Bet |
A Decimal Point | = | I'm a Dot in Place |
The Earthquakes | = | That Queer Shake |
Eleven plus two | = | Twelve plus one |
Contradiction | = | Accord not in it |
Astronomer | = | Moon Starer |
Year Two Thousand | = | A Year To Shut Down |
The Amazing
[From Hamlet by Shakespeare] To be or not to be; that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.=
In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.
Politician Anagrams
George Bush | = | He bugs Gore |
George Herbert Walker Bush | = | Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog |
Leroy Newton Gingrich | = | Yon Right-winger Clone |
Margaret Thatcher | = | That great charmer |
Princess Diana | = | End Is A Car Spin |
Ronald Wilson Reagan | = | A long-insane Warlord (or Insane Anglo warlord) |
Ronald Reagan | = | A darn long era |
The Conservative Party | = | Teacher in vast poverty |
The Grand Finale
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." - Neil A. Armstrong=
A thin man ran; makes a large stride; left planet, pins flag on moon! On to Mars!