Another favorite from the Grauniad


The world: a primer

Great Britain

Small American dependency located approximately 5,000 miles outside Galveston, Texas.

Comments (18)
  1. Ismail PAZARBASI says:

    What should I say… Are you regular reader of Guardian? It seems you have a lot of time to find those stuff.

  2. Ismail PAZARBASI says:

    What should I say… Are you regular reader of Guardian? It seems you have a lot of time to find those stuff.

  3. Hal O'Brien says:

    Ismail:

    I’m sure Raymond has his own thoughts, but…

    * It’s called a *World* Wide Web for a reason — reading the "Gaurdian" is now no more difficult than reading one’s local paper… And, rumor has it, there’s more to the world than one’s own backyard.

    * There *are* interests in the world other than coding and computers. Are you at all familiar with the idea of "leisure"? I realize, doing a Google on your name, you’re a very dedicated and single-minded individual… But that isn’t true of everyone.

    — Hal

  4. Ismail PAZARBASI says:

    Thanks for your critics, Hal. I am trying to open my eyes to the world in these days. All you can read about me on the web probably containing my questions, I have no homepage or a blog. I do not think I know enough to share with others, I am still learning.

    Raymond is a perfect man. He has a deep knownledge on software. Besides coder Raymond, I see a Raymond loves trip and enjoying a lot with many things. It may take my time to change.

    My comment was not against Raymond. I am a regular reader of Raymond’s and few more blogger’s blogs. I am not just coding, I am a university student, I love basketball. I am a fan of Raymond!

  5. Anonymous says:

    I love that quote …. it would be funny if it weren’t almost true :)

    Having said that, your president arrives here tonight, I don’t think he’ll like the 10’s of 1000’s of people telling him to go home when he gets here. Rumour has it that 100,000 might turn up to protest … should be interesting :)

  6. Simon says:

    Of course there’s this interesting tit bit about Mr Bushes visit to see the queen.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html

    From the Guardian again funnily enough.

  7. Alex says:

    I beg your pardon, but I think that the article is stupid. Very guardianish it that respect. This old cliche is just borring: americans are stupid rednecks which aren’t aware of existence of outer world; american president is a moron; America simply shoots its opponents; America exploits miserable third world making it even more poor, bla bla bla.. Regular anti american crap.

  8. Moi says:

    I think Raymond’s use of the term Grauniad inidicates that this wasn’t a one off thing he happened to find.
    Oh, and Alex, it is called humour (that’s right, it is spelt with a "u"). Simon’s link is even more amusing: "In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush’s protection squad will face justice in a British court". It doesn’t say what would happen if the shooting were deliberate. A medal? Free meal at McDonalds? Who knows.

  9. Alex says:

    2Moi

    Humo[u]r is something that sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning. It’s ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. The article from Guardian is irksomely predictible. In time 1000 and 1st it exploits old pestering gimmicks. It’s simply not professional. It indulges mob’s attitudes. This is the manner that yellow press boils its articles.

    Probably it was funny in first time. But now, multiplied by thousands of TV channels and zillions of gazettes for several years it’s just annoying and boring. Nowadays anti-americanism is not funny or mischievous anymore. It’s plain stupid.

    About article from Simon’s link. I think it’s just regular article without something that deserves special, more than ordinary interest. Visit of president or prime minister from one country to another is important political and diplomatic event, so there are always many interested parties there. Consequences of mistake can be costly. That’s why many juridical issues should be settled before the visit. This is diplomatic routine. The same way we discuss here consequences of NULL pointers and exceptions. How to treat them when occured and how to prevent them in first place. Manifestant that assaults president is example of such exception. He can injure president or be injured himself by president’s guards. This is quite exceptional though possible situation. Procedure should be cleared up before such situation happened.

    Reasonable people understand that. Unreasonable shout: "Microsoft’s craved for world domination and its software is buggy and faulty!" or makes articles in Observer with titles like "’Shoot-to-kill’ demand by US". The same childish "attention at any cost" attitude.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Alex wrote: "Nowadays anti-americanism is not funny or mischievous anymore. It’s plain stupid."

    Britain doesn’t hate the US. It hates Bush.

    And if people have anti-american sentiments ? Well I don’t agree with them, but I’ll defend to the death their right to express them (to paraphrase).

  11. Anonymous says:

    Alex wrote: "Nowadays anti-americanism is not funny or mischievous anymore. It’s plain stupid."

    Britain doesn’t hate the US. It hates Bush.

    And if people have anti-american sentiments ? Well I don’t agree with them, but I’ll defend to the death their right to express them (to paraphrase).

  12. James Kew says:

    // The same childish "attention at any cost" attitude. //

    The Guardian article was a bit childish, IMHO, but the Observer article on the Bush administration’s demands for the London visit was chilling and well-observed.

    Yes, it’s reasonable to provide security for visiting heads of state; but it’s not reasonable for visiting heads of state to demand:

    a) that London’s public transport infrastructure (millions of commuter journeys per day) is shut down for the duration of the visit,

    b) foreign security details be allowed to shoot to kill with full diplomatic immunity — and with miniguns, no less.

    Turn it around for a moment and imagine how the US press and people would react if, when Blair visited Washington, his entourage turned up armed with battlefield automatic weapons and the right to shoot, without question or consequence, any US citizen who looked at Blair a bit funny.

    And for goodness sake, stop whinging about free societies being critical of the US administration; that’s one of the privileges which freedom grants, and one which is enshrined in law for US citizens. Bush said as much in a BBC interview on the eve of his visit: "I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say."

    (It still shocks me that Americans don’t grant the same respect to France: you might not agree with what they said, but surely being able to publicly disagree with a world superpower is the ultimate expression of a free society?)

  13. Anonymous says:

    "Humo[u]r is something that sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning"

    From which we must assume that an "anti american" article is predictable and reasoning. I wonder why.

  14. Alex says:

    2Anonimous #1

    I’m not saying that critics of USA should be prohibited. (Whether hatered towards Bush can help is another story.) But it’s my right too to call stupid stupid.

    2Anonimous #2

    You’re twisting my words. Not every anti-american article is stupid. But this particular article of Guardian is stupid because it’s predictable where it should be humourous, it uses old cliches and flat jokes.

    2James Kew

    If during the visit of Blair in Washington there will be 100,000 of angry protesters, which "hate Blair", then weapons of Blair’s guards will not be surprise.

    And again, I’m not against critique or free speach or whatever. But when critique degrades to plain hatered or demagogy It’s my right not to buy it. If someone is ready to pay for an issue of Guardian so be it.

  15. Alex says:

    2Anonimous #1

    I’m not saying that critics of USA should be prohibited. (Whether hatered towards Bush can help is another story.) But it’s my right too to call stupid stupid.

    2Anonimous #2

    You’re twisting my words. Not every anti-american article is stupid. But this particular article of Guardian is stupid because it’s predictable where it should be humourous, it uses old cliches and flat jokes.

    2James Kew

    If during the visit of Blair in Washington there will be 100,000 of angry protesters, which "hate Blair", then weapons of Blair’s guards will not be surprise.

    And again, I’m not against critique or free speach or whatever. But when critique degrades to plain hatered or demagogy It’s my right not to buy it. If someone is ready to pay for an issue of Guardian so be it.

  16. Simon says:

    LSight note on the original aritcle. The use of the word ‘is’ to describe an article that was written three years ago during the farce that was the 2000 election is a bit strong.
    Remeber when reading stuff online check the date.

  17. Alex says:

    Oops.. :)

    P.S. Isn’t it a proof that there is nothing new under the Sun..

  18. Badman says:

    (It still shocks me that Americans don’t grant the same respect to France: you might not agree with what they said, but surely being able to publicly disagree with a world superpower is the ultimate expression of a free society?)

    Of course it is. France, England and every other country in the world is free to criticize America as much as they want. But what they REALLY want is the freedom to criticize America without America’s attitude toward them changing. That’s just stupid and childish – of course we’re going to get tired of being called imperial, unilateralist, stupid and evil! France blocks our attempt to oust a brutal dictator, even going so far as to advise Saddam personally and issue French passports to people in his government so they can leave Iraq after the war starts. Then France wonders why Americans don’t want to buy French goods or visit France any more. Do they not understand cause and effect? France sided with Saddam, yet wants the US to consider them a friend. Why should we?

Comments are closed.