October 23, 2004

GUARDIAN FOLKS 'DISMAYED'

The Guardian's Ian Mayes reveals that even Guardian staffers were opposed to Operation Clark County:

In a poll I conducted among Guardian staff who had been following the story, of 71 respondents, 13 thought it a legitimate and worthwhile exercise, 14 were undecided and 44 were against it. Among the reasons given by the latter, reflecting complaints coming from the US, were that intervention in the democratic processes of another country was not "legitimate newspaper behaviour"; and that it was arrogant and self-aggrandising.

Several were dismayed that the internet effect had apparently not been anticipated, one saying that the speed with which links to the Guardian story spread showed that "this perceived insult has legs". Another commented: "It seems a shame that, in this interactive age, with email and weblogs all around, we rejected any attempt to have a real conversation with US voters."

And The Guardian's Bobbie Johnson defends his thieving newspaper:

Arch Australian Tim Blair claims he had the idea first, but I have been assured this is not the case.

Not by me, you haven't.

UPDATE. Ohio Republican spokesman Jason Mauk: "The British are our loyal allies, but voters in Clark County are outraged at this tacky publicity stunt conducted by an anti-Bush publication to manipulate the vote in Ohio. It has backfired miserably and fired up our base. The Guardian did us a big favor."

UPDATE II. Guardian assistant features editor Paul MacInnes: "We knew we'd get a response from the political right. What we didn't anticipate is the intensity of it. We can take it, but I'd rather not receive letters about our green teeth."

UPDATE III. Scott Burgess observes:

While it's just fine - in fact rather noble - for thousands of Guardian readers to "open up debate" by sending unsolicited letters, the email response was unaccountably seen as having "the intention to smother free speech" - although it's hard to see how sending email does that.

UPDATE IV. Puce's attempted trek to Clark County isn't going well. Pray for Puce.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 23, 2004 03:02 PM
Comments

Arrogant and self-aggrandising to the end, aren't they? Like CBS and the bogus Burkett memos, La Guardienne is blind to how stupid they look.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at October 23, 2004 at 03:07 PM

"...this perceived insult has legs..."?

"Perceived" my crude, unsophisticated, non-Euroweenie, American ass!

And did you notice how the Garudian staff polled against the idea? So much for the "democracy" of the left.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 23, 2004 at 03:11 PM

44!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh My Gawd.

There are thoughtful people trapped in veal pens at the Guardian!

We must act now to free the poor souls!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: SLO Geem at October 23, 2004 at 03:25 PM


Tim, an "Arch" Australian - is this sort of like an "Arch" Enemy?

Congratulations upon earning the ire of the arch wankers!

Oh, and JeffS, obviously some journalistic staff votes are more equal than others. Simple really!

Posted by: Kaboom at October 23, 2004 at 03:26 PM

Arch!! Id love to be an Arch-American... what a great descriptive!

Posted by: Andrew at October 23, 2004 at 03:42 PM

The arch is one of strongest structures in the world. [lulls victim into false sense of security]

And one of the oldest. [knife in ribs]

ANYway!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 23, 2004 at 03:44 PM

He gets points for the "arch Australian" part... That's how we think of you in Los Angeles.

The best thing Robert Hughes ever said was, "Americans think of Australia as Texas by other means." We are comforted to know that in your parallel universe, the Molly Ivans figure (Margo) is kept on a leash.

Posted by: Cridland at October 23, 2004 at 03:46 PM

...intervention in the democratic processes of another country was not "legitimate newspaper behaviour"; and that it was arrogant and self-aggrandising.

That about sums up European and DNC criticism of Bush. All the sophisticated intellectuals agree that Saddam got 100% of the vote.

Posted by: perfectsense at October 23, 2004 at 03:49 PM

I thought an Arch Australian was Clive James insulting a waiter...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 23, 2004 at 03:59 PM

"...obviously some journalistic staff votes are more equal than others..."

"All journos are created equal, but some journos are more equal than others."

(With apologies to George Orwell, who wrote better than he knew)

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 23, 2004 at 04:02 PM

Who would have thought that there were actually 44 people at the Wanker with even a smidgeon, if no more, of good sense? On the internet you learn something unexpected every.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at October 23, 2004 at 04:06 PM

Arch Australian Tim Blair claims he had the idea first, but I have been assured this is not the case'
SAINTED BLAIR !! what infamous leftoid distortions!
Must have got his assurances from Margo in byron Bay seething at not having taken up the OP herself.

Posted by: davo at October 23, 2004 at 04:27 PM

Arhed Australian a cynical attempt to liken TIM to the hunchback of Notre Dame , the hero of the right who saved the damsel in distress from the clutches of the marxist left.
Yes I remember it well as maurice used to say.

Posted by: davo at October 23, 2004 at 04:30 PM

Hahahahaha. This is just too funny.

Posted by: Leigh at October 23, 2004 at 04:34 PM

the real jeffs
some journos are more equal thatn others.
...exactly Martinkus's point when he eleveated himself to non beheadable amongst others.

Posted by: davo at October 23, 2004 at 04:34 PM

The 44% were the 44 members of the LONDON Daily telegraph staff invited for a day visit and mistakenly asked to vote.

Posted by: davo at October 23, 2004 at 04:39 PM

Congratulations on your new Arch-Australian status, Tim. Do you get to wear one of those cool fishhead hats like the Roman Catholic clergy?

Posted by: Aaron at October 23, 2004 at 04:44 PM

"Not by me, you haven't." he said archly...

Posted by: mojo at October 23, 2004 at 04:48 PM

Two messages to my chosen Guardian epal,Jonathan Freedland:

(1)'Operation Clark County is an insulting piece of condescension.

Thank you for supporting the Bush cause with such well-timed negative acumen.'

(2)'Dear Jonathan

It is richly amusing to be told that I am a 'right wing spammer' (Ian Katz, Oct 21). And this from newspaper that has organised the unsoliticed email harrassment of a whole American county.

But then I forget. Your project is the enlightment of stupid Americans; mine is merely spam.'

Posted by: Richard Smith at October 23, 2004 at 05:09 PM

Tim (or may I call you "Arch",

who said a prophet is never honoured in his own country?

Posted by: jlchydro at October 23, 2004 at 05:51 PM

"Arch Australian Tim Blair claims he had the idea first, but I have been assured this is not the case."

Thank God for that. Wouldn't want to think that a proper British journal utterly humiliated itself, merely to amuse some Australian fellow. Albeit - albeit! - it was one of those Arch-Australians, don't you know, who are rather more clever than their regular chaps.

Posted by: Glen Wishard at October 23, 2004 at 06:01 PM

This is probably from the "don't go there" department, but I found a picture of Tim in his holy garb.

Posted by: Aaron at October 23, 2004 at 06:15 PM

I'm a real US voter and I have a question. You ever try to have a real conversation with a pompous douchebag? My time is waaaayyy to valuable, I could be out raping and pillaging.

Posted by: Harry in Atlanta at October 23, 2004 at 06:30 PM

Well I'm just happy that the Guardian staffers have shown themselves publicly to be the f*wits we all thought they were ...

Posted by: Schmendrick at October 23, 2004 at 06:35 PM

BTW I don't believe for a moment when these morons brought up this bit o' genius that most of the staff was against it. This article is just an exercise in cya. They need a scapegoat so that the Grauniad's loyal reading nitwits in America don't think the 'whole' operation is a collection of people who have shit for brains. It can be a horrible blow to one's ego to find out your favorite leftist hack is a card-carrying dumbass. Empathy if used unwisely can be a terrible thing.

Posted by: Harry in Atlanta at October 23, 2004 at 06:37 PM

"Several were dismayed that the internet effect had apparently not been anticipated"

Obviously a failure of intelligence there as well.
Maybe they will cut Bush some slack now. Not.

Posted by: truss at October 23, 2004 at 07:11 PM

Come to think of it, he does look a little like Archie...

Posted by: Stan at October 23, 2004 at 07:39 PM

Thanks to the Looney Left Guardian I see the legitimacy of the American Revolution.

When we also be free from the Looney Left,
- their Burlar's Murder Charter,
- tax crippled pensions,
- free for all street gang violence,
- MMR mercury injections for children,
- Labour MPs snouts in the trough,
- IR35 Slave Master tax,
- record adults and children STI rates,
- Labour voter open door immigration,
- toleration of illegal immigrants working illegally and consequent deaths,
- banning of Legal Firearms and subsequent rise in gun crimes
- Scottish Rule of England,
- United Scotland & Divided England,
- Collapse of Fishing stocks,
- Biased BBC Propaganda Tax,
- Labour Donations for Contracts , Bernie Eccleston, PowderJect, Mittal, Hinduja Passports, Mandleson, Keith Vaz, George Galloway, Liar-Liar Stephen Byers,
- A Levels fiasco,
- Estelle Morris (destroyer of A Levels and Education Minister who failed A Levels).

The British are very unhappy. No wonder.

Posted by: burntpig at October 23, 2004 at 07:42 PM

The British Left are afraid of Aussies. Rupert Murdoch, no doubt the 'Arch-Australian' Archetype, gives them the willies.

You're in good company, Tim.

Like the lefty version of (Dark) Knighthood.

Force be with you!

Posted by: Bruce at October 23, 2004 at 07:56 PM


I have been trying to find out what the term "Arch Australian" actually means.

At first blush, it would appear to have the same majestic qualities as the word "uber", as often used by their mainland colleagues in the EU.

However, after considerable research, the term "Arch Australian" appears to be used in the pejorative sense, as in "Archetypal Australian" - i.e. convicts, beer-swillers etc. It would appear to be a peculiarly UK adjective.

Tim, I suggest a challenge to Bobbie Johnson - either it was (a) your idea, or (b) thought up in a North London pub by person or persons unknown. Your proof is in the public record, let's see how his proof stacks up.

Then a metaphorical slap across the face with a mouldering gardening glove, and pistols at dawn!


Posted by: Kaboom at October 23, 2004 at 08:02 PM


Arrggghh! Bruce beat me to it.

Therefore, in honour of Bruce, I defer to those clever Pommy Bastards, Monty Python:

Voice Over Number eight. The kneecap.

Pull back to reveal the knee belongs to First Bruce, an Australian in full Australian outback gear. We briefly hear a record of 'Waltzing Mathilda'. He is sitting in a very hot, slightly dusty room with low wicker chairs, a table in the middle, big centre fan, and old fridge.
Second Bruce Goodday, Bruce!
First Bruce Oh, Hello Bruce!
Third Bruce How are yer Bruce?
First Bruce Bit crook, Bruce.
Second Bruce Where's Bruce?
First Bruce He's not here, Bruce.
Third Bruce Blimey, s'hot in here, Bruce.
First Bruce S'hot enough to boil a monkey's bum!
Second Bruce That's a strange expression, Bruce.
First Bruce Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. S'hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in 'ere, your Majesty,' he said and she smiled quietly to herself.
Third Bruce She's a good Sheila, Bruce and not at all stuck up.
Second Bruce Ah, here comes the Bossfella now! - how are you, Bruce?

Enter fourth Bruce with English person, Michael
Fourth Bruce Goodday, Bruce, Hello Bruce, how are you, Bruce? Gentlemen, I'd like to introduce a chap from pommie land... who'll be joining us this year here in the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolamaloo.
All Goodday.
Fourth Bruce Michael Baldwin - this is Bruce. Michael Baldwin - this is Bruce. Michael Baldwin - this is Bruce.
First Bruce Is your name not Bruce, then?
Michael No, it's Michael.
Second Bruce That's going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
Fourth Bruce Well, Gentlemen, I think we'd better start the meeting. Before we start, though, I'll ask the padre for a prayer.
First Bruce snaps a plastic dog-collar round his neck. They all lower their heads.
First Bruce Oh Lord, we beseech thee, have mercy on our faculty, Amen!!
All Amen!
Fourth Bruce Crack the tubes, right! (Third Bruce starts opening beer cans) Er, Bruce, I now call upon you to welcome Mr. Baldwin to the Philosophy Department.
Second Bruce I'd like to welcome the pommy bastard to God's own earth, and I'd like to remind him that we don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here.
All Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce Now, Bruce teaches classical philosophy, Bruce teaches Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism, and is also in charge of the sheepdip.
Third Bruce What's does new Bruce teach?
Fourth Bruce New Bruce will be teaching political science - Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett, and Benet.
Second Bruce Those are cricketers, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce Oh, spit!
Third Bruce Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce In addition, as he's going to be teaching politics, I've told him he's welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong.
They all stand up.
All Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you. Amen!
They sit down.
Fourth Bruce Any questions?
Second Bruce New Bruce - are you a pooftah?
Fourth Bruce Are you a pooftah?
Michael No!
Fourth Bruce No right, well gentlemen, I'll just remind you of the faculty rules: Rule one - no pooftahs. Rule two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever - if there's anybody watching. Rule three - no pooftahs. Rule four - I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out. Rule five - no pooftahs. Rule six - there is no rule six! Rule seven - no pooftahs. That concludes the reading of the rules, Bruce.
First Bruce This here's the wattle - the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle or you can hold it in your hand.
All Amen!

Apologies for the long post - but it's a good one!

Posted by: Kaboom at October 23, 2004 at 08:24 PM

The English are our allies, and I just feel sad that some of the respondents leveled insults at the whole nation instead of just the wankers at the Guardian.

(speaking of teeth: Did ALL of the dentists bolt the country when National Health came into effect, or was it just the good ones?)

Posted by: DaveP. at October 23, 2004 at 09:04 PM

"Arch" here should be translated as "bloody smart-ass who's made us look fools (again)".

(The "arch" qualifies "Tim Blair", not "Australian").

I once had a snooty English Prof, who was English himself, write on an essay of mine "Don't be arch", although much to my disappointment he didn't add "you bloody Australian".

Posted by: Scott Campbell aka Blithering Bunny at October 23, 2004 at 09:04 PM

It's clear from the Guardian story that the poll was conducted *after* the backlash had occurred, so as Harry in Atlanta says, this does not represent what Guardian staffers thought of the idea before it blew up in their faces.

Posted by: Scott Campbell aka Blithering Bunny at October 23, 2004 at 09:07 PM

The green teeth thing is part of a long and honourable line of hygene disadvantage attributed to Poms in the 60s,70s. The weekly bath and, with showers unavailable, the Pommie shower was a quick hose down with spray deodorant. On reflection there are some things you don't need to know.

Posted by: TT at October 23, 2004 at 09:27 PM

try 'hygiene'

Posted by: TT at October 23, 2004 at 09:40 PM

Dont forget to email the members of the gaurdian.

To bypass the anti spam -
1) Vary your text
2) Only email 1 person at a time
3) Do not mention Clark County

Write your email as if you have a genuine story. The guardian's email should be rendered useless and they wont recognise real stories from "Operation Loony Left".

I am also waiting for someone to release the addresses of Guardian workers, so we can send them hand written letters.

clare.dyer@guardian.co.uk
polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk
dan.glaister@guardian.co.uk
ian.katz@guardian.co.uk
isabel.hilton@guardian.co.uk
stephen.brook@guardian.co.uk
simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk
jackie.ashley@guardian.co.uk
malcolm.dean@guardian.co.uk
steve.bell@guardian.co.uk
eric.allison@guardian.co.uk
matt.wells@guardian.co.uk
dan.milmo@guardian.co.uk
richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk
alan.travis@guardian.co.uk conal.urquhart@guardian.co.uk
mberlins@aol.com
audrey.gillan@guardian.co.uk
ewen.macaskill@guardian.co.uk
lee.glendinning@guardian.co.uk
jason.burke@observer.co.uk
michael.billington@guardian.co.uk
david.brindle@guardian.co.uk
lyn.gardner@guardian.co.uk
owen.gibson@guardian.co.uk
claire.cozens@guardian.co.uk
judith.mackrell@guardian.co.uk
jason.deans@guardian.co.uk
dominic.timms@guardian.co.uk
jonathan.glancey@guardian.co.uk
andrew.clements@guardian.co.uk
tim.ashley@guardian.co.uk
nancy.banks-smith@guardian.co.uk
editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
books.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
editor@mediaguardian.co.uk
football.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
film.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
jobs.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
work.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
education.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
money.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
shopping.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
travel.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
arts.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
editor@societyguardian.co.uk

Posted by: Briana at October 23, 2004 at 10:17 PM

I have an aussie mate in north carolina,eight miles from fort bragg who tells me that the rednecks faith in bush is unshakable.
Just one glitch at the moment,the daily Iraq casualty figures on TV every morning,it's starting to hurt.
I read the redneck response to the guardian,seems to me that the emails had a common thread about pommie tea drinking and dubious pommy teeth,no mention of cricket!
I suspect that the republican machine organised this response.

Posted by: marklatham at October 23, 2004 at 10:26 PM

Actually we are all just puppets of the evil conspiracy. One very busy Republican hack writes all these posts, and engineered the recent Aussie election too.

No, better, we are all just voices inside your mind, great Latham. And it is all a nasty dream. Go back to sleeeeeeeep....

Posted by: Bruce at October 23, 2004 at 10:42 PM

Dear Daily Wanker: We'll shut up about the teeth if you'll shut up about the fat. Deal?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at October 23, 2004 at 10:43 PM

Yes your are on to me. Using such an obvious Aussie name as 'Bruce' no doubt made you suspicious, and if some of you remember the days before Microsft Word, then I guess you could remember Monty Python too.

Ahhh, the game is up. And the GOP doesn't even pay me very well either!
Damn!

Posted by: Bruce at October 23, 2004 at 10:50 PM

So, Tim, the image is shattered. All that about big lunches with expensive wines is just a carefully cultivated myth. As an Arch Australian, it seems that you really eat lunch at McDonald's.

Posted by: Ernie G at October 23, 2004 at 11:30 PM

A sensitive approach would just have sent the voters the cash equivalent of a Guardian subscription, and let them choose what to do with it themselves.

Then they could report how many subscriptions they got.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at October 23, 2004 at 11:32 PM


You americans and your dumbass australia cheer squad have no shame. How often does the u.s. force its will and its political opinions on other countries? Recent examples include -
The american ambassador to oz sticking his nose in australia politics before the election.
The boycott of french products.
The regular american letters published in australia daily newspapers telling australians to do this or that.
And your whinging about a letter campaign! Tissue? Get a grip you chicken-hawks.

Posted by: Bob at October 23, 2004 at 11:34 PM

Bob's your uncle!

I just wanted to say that.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 23, 2004 at 11:49 PM

"The american ambassador to oz sticking his nose in australia politics before the election. "

Bob, does the name Diana Kerry ring a bell? To refresh your memory, she is the daughter of an American presidential candidate who stuck her nose in Australian politics before an election.

Posted by: Ernie G at October 23, 2004 at 11:52 PM

Actually Diana Kerry is a sister, not a daughter. Which means she doesn't even have youthful immaturity as an excuse.

And in what way is the boycott of French products an example of ``forcing one's will'' abroad? It's not as if Karl Rove ordered everyone to stop buying French; in fact Washington had nothing to do with it. But Americans were furious at the French and a lot of them ....just....stopped buying French. I know, I'm one of them. I didn't spend a lot on French products (maybe $100 a year) but I guess there were a lot of $100-a-year people out there since the French are squealing about it.

Which reminds me, thanks to the poster (jlchydro?) who recommended I try Oz Sauvignon Blanc as a replacement for Chablis. It's not *quite* the same, but awfully good nonetheless.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 24, 2004 at 12:03 AM

Bob- thingy on on a keyboard called a 'shift key' makes Capital Letters.

Please consult your local primary school teacher.

I'm sure after a suitable training period, you can comment just like the grownups, with, like, something resembling written English, dude.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at October 24, 2004 at 12:10 AM

Dear Bob:

Get a clue.

Sincerely,

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 24, 2004 at 12:39 AM

More on the Grauniad's defensive double standards here:

Guardian, in Hole, Digs

Posted by: Scott Burgess at October 24, 2004 at 12:49 AM

BRIANA-

If they are registared to vote in the UK- you can get their address through this service:

http://www.192.com/electoralroll.cfm

I'm sure our friends at the Guardian would enjoy recieving letters from the colonials...

Ann

Posted by: Ann at October 24, 2004 at 12:55 AM

Didn't Ian Katz's email say he was unavailable till the 25th? He sure gives a lot of interviews for someone who is unavailable. ;-) I've heard a couple of people talk about getting ahold of the British voter list and replying in kind. I don't think that would be the right thing to do. It would be better to leave all the regular British people out of it. They don't deserve to be harassed anymore than the people of Clark County did. I'm not going to judge the British population based on one newspaper who's editors and writers skipped the classes on privacy, ethics, and objectivity in journalism school. Besides, I know, as an American, that I would hate to be judged by what CBS says and does. ;-) Now the staff at the Guardian is another matter. Hey, they're the ones who wanted to tell everyone their opinion whether they wanted to hear it or not. The Guardian's editors and writers shouldn't be getting so upset when they get the same in return. Funny how them bombarding private citizens with what they think is free speech and in the "spirit of friendship" and someone doing the same to them is harassment by "right-wingers", never mind that a lot of Democrats are pissed too. Of course people who are so ingrained in their own beliefs that they think people who don't agree with them are stupid, uninformed, or naive tend to see things like that. BTW, what are the requirements to become an "Arch Australian"? I have some friends in Oz who might be interested. lol.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 24, 2004 at 02:02 AM

Thanks, Ann, for the link to the British voter electoral rolls; did a little trawling and found a pleasant surprise or two ;-)

But no, Jeremy, nobody is suggesting that we spam British voters as well. The only addresses I want are those of the principal offenders - Fraser, Cornwell, Dawkins, Katz and Mayes. And even there you have to be careful. For example the electoral roll for London lists two Ian Mayeses and several Ian Katzes, and I for one don't want to be writing to the wrong guys.

Perhaps we should write nice emails to the Grauniads and say ``Please send me your home address so I can write you a real letter and we can `discuss' politics since you seem so anxious to do so''? I'm sure they'll go for that. Won't they?

Posted by: Annalucia at October 24, 2004 at 02:31 AM

Annalucia - re: french w(h)ine - just read an article yesterday - and since my history is very short-lived, don't have the link - that their industry is really beginning to hurt. And some of that is due specifically to America. We're buying less expensive wines from domestic and international sources.

Champagne is still going strong, however.

Posted by: Sandy P at October 24, 2004 at 02:39 AM

Paul wrote:

"Dear Daily Wanker: We'll shut up about the teeth if you'll shut up about the fat. Deal?"

that's perfect :-) sounds fair to me!

Posted by: suellen at October 24, 2004 at 02:50 AM

Found it, go to No Pasaran for the link on wine:

Posted by: Sandy P at October 24, 2004 at 02:55 AM

Annalucia So we shouldn't e-mail British voters telling them to vote Tory? If it works according to the Guardian plan, that should set Blair in place like concrete....

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 03:38 AM

travistie

Posted by: Puce at October 24, 2004 at 03:48 AM

So was the poll of the "gang of 44" taken before or after? Do we have a "Coalition of the Willing" here or not? "Archie" "Archie" "Aw Geez, Edith!"

Posted by: YoJimbo at October 24, 2004 at 03:57 AM

"The English are our allies, and I just feel sad that some of the respondents leveled insults at the whole nation instead of just the wankers at the Guardian."

Why. The Guardian is in England now isnt it. I say they deserve it for for letten them Commies run a muck. And which one a you lefty bung lovers said no body makes fun of crickett. Get with the program my friend.

Posted by: Capt. Americrunch at October 24, 2004 at 04:02 AM

Bob is a suck-a$$ bi*ch.

The US does it's will 1) Because it can, and 2) Because the US is the last best hope of freedom loving people everywhere. Too bad the UN Band of Blubberers are a pack of tinhorn dictators, but that's the way it's evolved. You REALLY want them making the decisions? I mean, you don't even have basic firearms to protect yourselves with. You're totally at the mercy of your government.

"The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not." - Aristotle

I'm not an arch-American, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. And I have GREAT teeth.

Good show, Mr. Blair. You opened up a can of Vegemite Flavored Whup-A$$ on those Limey spaz-tards. Serves 'em right.

Posted by: Bloghorn Bleghorn at October 24, 2004 at 04:04 AM

"Arch Australian"
He complimented you. Didn't realize it, of course, because he's a lefty twit, but he complimented you.

Now me, I'm proud to be a Yank and a Michigander. Put that in your crack pipes and smoke it, commie Guardianistas!

Posted by: <ikey at October 24, 2004 at 04:14 AM

Marklatham:

If the response appears organized, than it is likely we all came up with it at the same time.

We tend to do that here, we're very self-organizing, but don't like orders from on high. Just our way, lad.

Posted by: Mikey at October 24, 2004 at 04:25 AM

Bob, a spontaneous boycott by ordinary people (the boycotting of French goods) is not a government plot. It's simply that people like me, and I was a Francophile for decades, found the actions of the French after 9/11 so amoral that we quit buying French stuff. There are plenty of American-made tires, perfumes, and cosmetics available, Canada and Wisconsin and Italy produce good cheeses, and California and Australian wines are pretty fine.

Anyone know of a good sub for Burgundy or brandy, that said? I've been doing without.

Posted by: ushie at October 24, 2004 at 04:35 AM

Americrunch: Grow up, gerbil. There are good English troopers fighting for our side in Iraq and Afghanistan and I feel no need to see them tarred with the same brush used on the losers at the Gaurdian. When you insult your allies they tend to become your enemies.

The equivalent would be judging the whole United States by what the Berkeley Barb takes for an editorial stance.

You're what, 14 years old? 15?

Posted by: DaveP. at October 24, 2004 at 05:06 AM

``Annalucia So we shouldn't e-mail British voters telling them to vote Tory?''

No, Mr. McEnroe, we should not. For one thing we would come across as interfering jackasses, just like the Grauniads. For another, the Tory party seems to be in almost as much disarray as the Illinois Republican party, in other words, good for nothing. The last Tory leader with any spine was Lady Thatcher, and I don't think she has much influence these days.

I don't think we should give up on the Brits just yet. Any country which can still produce Royal Marines obviously has something going for it, and there are Brits who post here such as Vulturedave who have let us know forcefully that the wet messes over at the Guardian don't speak for the majority. I only hope there's enough of them to form an electoral counterweight to the aforementioned wet messes, who seem to be over-represented in the Labour Party.

Ushie - we buy Lepanto brandy, from Spain. We do this (1) because it kicks ass and (2) in honor of the 38% of the Spanish electorate that voted to retain Aznar. Here in Chicago it's $45 a bottle but since this household goes through maybe 2 bottles a year, we consider it affordable.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 24, 2004 at 05:25 AM

"Any country which can still produce Royal Marines"

Just thought you should know, the Labour Government has earmarked the Royal Marines to be scrapped in cutbacks.

The RM are no longer required for the post-Cold War era. The same job can now be provided by smaller quick reaction forces.

The savings made will be used to provide the NHS with extra funding, as well as state jobs and Asylum receptions centres located in conservative areas.

Posted by: Tony Blair at October 24, 2004 at 05:32 AM

Annalucia Ah. Um. heh. You might want to excuse those 75,000 e-mails that just went out, then... really wish you'd gotten back to me sooner.

Just kiddin', probably.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 06:48 AM

Im old enough to be your undertaker so just keep it it in mind son.

Posted by: Capt. Americrunch at October 24, 2004 at 06:50 AM

Screw the champagne. Drink ppumante and cold duck if you must fizz and God Bless America!

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 09:18 AM

After
1 THE INTIMIDATION OF american voters
2 tHE CALL FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE US
3 AND NOW SHAKESPEARE WAS MUSLIM!
All is revealed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1334860,00.html

Posted by: davo at October 24, 2004 at 05:08 PM

Python: Funny Religions:
"This is Bruce Beer, Arch-Bishop of Australia. Brucie has personally converted over 400 sinners, 18 inside the distance..."

Posted by: mojo at October 24, 2004 at 07:06 PM

Tim wins OLYMPIC GOLD
leftoid converted in 9.78 secs !
record not yet retified
awaiting drug test on leftoid.

Posted by: davo at October 25, 2004 at 01:57 PM

Annalucia, "I don't think we should give up on the Brits just yet"
Y'know, for people who have spent the last few days bleating about those frightfully patronising Guardian readers, this really does take the biscuit. Please do give up on us, as a whole we're not really that fond of your interest in this country. In fact any association at all is increasingly embarrassing. We do care who wins your election because unfortunately our own Prime Minister lacks the moral conviction to forge his own foreign policy and will do whatever the US President tells him to. Hopefully Kerry will be able to reverse the tidal wave of hate washing over both our countries right now before it's too late. Hopefully he understands that education and tolerance are better weapons against terrorism than violence and illegal occupation. However I fear it's hoping far too much that many of the regular correspondents on this site will ever understand that. (How many of you could point to Iraq on a map before the war? Or name 2 of its cities? How thorough is your understanding of the teachings in the Quoran? What do you think is the direct link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? Which currently poses a greater threat to world peace and stability - North Korea or Washington D.C.?)
I've got a horrible feeling it won't happen but the words 'President Kerry' have a particularly optimistic sound to them.

Posted by: Sarah at October 26, 2004 at 12:11 AM

Thanks for the load of condescension, Sarah. Yes, we're all stupid hicks who didn't know what Irack, err, Iraq was before our evilstupid leader Bushitler decided to invade that country, and besides, somebody should really have placed troops in Washington DC (UN troops, no doubt) because the U.S. is a greater danger to "world peace and stability" than North Korea. (Would that be the type of "stability" that makes otherwise well-meaning people support dictators like Saddam?) Glad we've got those insights into your particular brand of delusion.

And thanks also for giving us the British version of the "[insert political leader here] is a weak-kneed cretin who can only blindly follow Bush in his foreign policy, but if he was blindly following the French in their foreign policy instead, he'd be a maven of independence and clear thinking" trope.

education and tolerance are better weapons against terrorism than violence and illegal occupation.

Would that be education, madrassa-style, and tolerance of sharia law? Enjoy your Britain of the future, Sarah...I don't think you will, though. Not once things have progressed to a point when even simpletons like you (who find it easier to blame Bush than accept reality) will be able to see the writing on the wall.

Posted by: PW at October 26, 2004 at 02:17 AM

Thanks for the feedback PW. First of all, did I claim I could have answered those questions before the Iraq war? Some yes, some no. I'm not suggesting you are any more stupid than me (and it was you who called me a simpleton) - the difference is I'll admit to what I don't know.
If someone hits me I'd a) want to hit them back but b) want to know why.
You're right - I don't enjoy my vision of Britain of the future the way things are headed. I used to feel proud of our multicultural, tolerant society that rejected all forms of prejudice and bigotry but that's beginning to wane. I suspect that your rosy vision involves anyone of Arab appearance being subjected to random stop and searches. I wonder how that's any different or better than fundamentalist Arabs deciding that anyone who's Christian is therefore a target for hostility?

Posted by: Sarah at October 26, 2004 at 03:35 AM

I used to feel proud of our multicultural, tolerant society that rejected all forms of prejudice and bigotry but that's beginning to wane.

Has it ever occured to you that some people whom you're so strenously trying to be tolerant of (in the name of the vaunted "multiculturalism") don't exactly share your high ideals? That if they ever got their way, prejudice against you (you're a woman, after all) will be the order of the day? You quite clearly don't seem to be aware of that, or don't want to be aware of that. That's why I'm calling you a reality-ignoring simpleton, not because of any perceived lack of knowledge about world geography.

You're going to be "tolerant" and free of "all forms of prejudice" right up until Sharia law is instituted and you're losing a hand or your head because you happened to look at a man funny. That's the Britain I don't think you'll enjoy much, not the Britain you seem to be worried over, which is one that merely offers you less warm'n'fuzzy feelings and fewer reasons to feel good about your own morality and "tolerance". Don't think it can happen? Check the demographics and you'll have a real reason to be scared (i.e. one not named "George W. Bush").

As for the viewpoint you've erroneously ascribed to me, I don't care much for random searching of Muslims, because that's a waste of resources and an intrusion into the lives of innocent citizens...now, if it was coupled with some decent profiling (not just of Muslims, naturally), sure, but then it wouldn't be random anymore, of course. Anyway, if I was Briton, I'd start by demanding the deportation of all hate-preaching Muslim clerics who aren't British nationals, as my own country of Germany has fortunately done recently (albeit somewhat ineptly) with one particularly egregious example. You can even demand the deportation of all hate-preaching Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis as well, if you want to be even-handed. I just suspect you won't find any, unlike among Muslim clerics.

Posted by: PW at October 26, 2004 at 01:34 PM

I checked the demographics, as instructed, and the Muslim population of Great Britain currently represents 2.8% of the total population (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954)

Please advise why this is a "real reason to be scared", particularly as there is absolutely no indication that the overwhelming majority of that 2.8% would tolerate, much less propose, application of the particular version of Sharia law that you reference.
The Muslim majorities in Malaysia and Turkey, for example, don't enforce Sharia law, so what makes you think 2.8% of the UK population would want to?
You make pointed reference to the fact I am a woman. Well as a woman I salute Islam for elevating the status of women 1,400 years ago by giving them the right to divorce and to have financial indepedence, long before the rest of the world did.

Personally I wouldn't want to be a Muslim woman, mainly because I enjoy drinking alcohol, I don't always dress modestly and in general I couldn't maintain the necessary moral standards.

But born into a different culture I'm sure I'd be proud to be Muslim and saddened that strangers who don't know me assume I'm part of some violent plot for world domination.

Hate-preaching Christian pastors? Two words: Hutton Gibson. Two more: Ian Paisley.

At least I'm reacting to the current reality, PW, not a fantasy that's been created by endless scaremongering and pro-war propoganda.

Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 at 04:25 AM

I checked the demographics, as instructed, and the Muslim population of Great Britain currently represents 2.8% of the total population

Good, now check the demographic trends, too. It's not going to remain 2.8% forever. Birthrates among Muslims vs. birthrates among people of British descent will see to that. I'm not familiar with the exact numbers for Britain, but I suspect they don't diverge terribly much from those for Germany, which are 3+ kids per Muslim woman, and 1.2 per ethnic German woman. If those trends continue, within just one generation (i.e. about 20-25 years), the Muslim population of child-bearing age will increase by more than 50% (and that's without considering additional immigration), while the German population of child-bearing age will go down by 40% or more. I'm sure you can calculate what that rate of change would do to your 2.8% over 40 or 50 years.

Please advise why this is a "real reason to be scared", particularly as there is absolutely no indication that the overwhelming majority of that 2.8% would tolerate, much less propose, application of the particular version of Sharia law that you reference.

There's that lack of perspective again. It doesn't take a majority for that to happen, a particularly vocal minority will be enough. 5 to 10% should do it. Just enough to become a viable voting block for politicians who care more about getting or staying in power than what's best for their country. Just take a look across the channel and consider the multitude of problems the French have with their growing Muslim minority already. Think Britain is somehow immune to that?

You make pointed reference to the fact I am a woman. Well as a woman I salute Islam for elevating the status of women 1,400 years ago by giving them the right to divorce and to have financial indepedence, long before the rest of the world did.

Well, if that justifies all current excesses of Islam, hey, who am I to argue. Nevermind that the rights of women in Islam curiously haven't seen much progress in the 1400 years since. I'm sure you're also pretty understanding of the fact that radical Muslims are still pissed about losing Spain (err, al-Andalus) 500 years ago, and being repulsed by the Viennese a few centuries later. They'd like to have Europe back, which I guess is aokay with you. Good to have that cleared up.

Hate-preaching Christian pastors? Two words: Hutton Gibson. Two more: Ian Paisley.

I'm only familiar with Paisley, and I agree he's an idiot. If only you could work up the same level of indignation about certain Muslim clerics, too.

At least I'm reacting to the current reality, PW, not a fantasy that's been created by endless scaremongering and pro-war propoganda.

Well, unlike you (presumably), I've not lived in a comfortable Western democracy all my life, so you may want to reconsider which one of us has fallen for propaganda. And as evidenced by your failure to take future demographic trends into account, perhaps your grasp of "current reality" could use some extending into "future reality". Because that's what us evil warmongers are concerned about, not your cushy "current reality" status quo that seems to be all you're worried about.

Posted by: PW at October 27, 2004 at 07:33 AM

BTW, part of the reason that a vocal 5-10% will be enough to swing things is that many folks like you will be all too happy to go along with them (in the name of "tolerance" and "understanding") and vote for your own destruction. At the risk of Godwin'ing this thread, I suggest taking a look at German history, circa 1922-1933. The Nazis didn't start out as a 40% party, either.

Posted by: PW at October 27, 2004 at 07:43 AM