We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
We are due for some fun. The Independent has reported a most extraordinary trial going on in the High Court at the moment in which a man named Chrysler is accused of stealing more than 40,000 coat hangers from hotels round the world. He admits his guilt, but in his defence he claims that… well, perhaps it would be simpler just to bring you a brief extract from the trial. We join the case at the point where Chrysler has just taken the stand.
Counsel: What is your name?
Chrysler:> Chrysler. Arnold Chrysler.
Counsel: Is that your own name?
Chrysler: Whose name do you think it is?
Counsel: I am just asking if it is your name.
Chrysler: And I have just told you it is. Why do you doubt it?
Counsel: It is not unknown for people to give a false name in court.
Chrysler: Which court?
Counsel: This court.
Chrysler: What is the name of this court?
Counsel: This is No 5 Court.
Chrysler: No, that is the number of this court. What is the name of this court?
Counsel: It is quite immaterial what the name of this court is!
Chrysler: Then perhaps it is immaterial if Chrysler is really my name.
Counsel: No, not really, you see because…
Judge: Mr Lovelace?
Counsel: Yes, m’lud?
Judge: I think Mr Chrysler is running rings round you already. I would try a new line of attack if I were you.
Counsel: Thank you, m’lud.
Chrysler: And thank you from ME, m’lud. It’s nice to be appreciated.
Judge: Shut up, witness.
Chrysler: Willingly, m’lud. It is a pleasure to be told to shut up by you. For you, I would…
Judge: Shut up, witness. Carry on, Mr Lovelace.
Counsel: Now, Mr Chrysler, for let us assume that that is your name, you are accused of purloining in excess of 40,000 hotel coat hangers.
Chrysler: I am.
Counsel: Can you explain how this came about?
Chrysler: Yes. I had 40,000 coats which I needed to hang up.
Counsel: Is that true?
Chrysler: No.
Counsel: Then why did you say it?
Chrysler: To attempt to throw you off balance.
Counsel: Off balance?
Chrysler: Certainly. As you know, all barristers seek to undermine the confidence of any hostile witness, or defendant. Therefore it must be equally open to the witness, or defendant, to try to shake the confidence of a hostile barrister.
Counsel: On the contrary, you are not here to indulge in cut and thrust with me. You are only here to answer my questions.
Chrysler: Was that a question?
Counsel: No.
Chrysler: Then I can’t answer it.
Judge: Come on, Mr Lovelace! I think you are still being given the run-around here. You can do better than that. At least, for the sake of the English bar, I hope you can.
Counsel: Yes, m’lud. Now, Mr Chrysler, perhaps you will describe what reason you had to steal 40,000 coat hangers?
Chrysler: Is that a question?
Counsel: Yes.
Chrysler: It doesn’t sound like one. It sounds like a proposition which doesn’t believe in itself. You know, “Perhaps I will describe the reason I had to steal 40,000 coat hangers… Perhaps I won’t… Perhaps I’ll sing a little song instead…”
Judge: In fairness to Mr Lovelace, Mr Chrysler, I should remind you that barristers have an innate reluctance to frame a question as a question. Where you and I would say,”Where were you on Tuesday?”, they are more likely to say, “Perhaps you could now inform the court of your precise whereabouts on the day after that Monday?”. It isn’t, strictly, a question, and it is not graceful English but you must pretend that it is a question and then answer it, otherwise we will be here for ever. Do you understand?
Chrysler: Yes, m’lud.
Judge: Carry on, Mr Lovelace.
Counsel: Mr Chrysler, why did you steal 40,000 hotel coat hangers, knowing as you must have that hotel coat hangers are designed to be useless outside hotel wardrobes?
Chrysler: Because I build and sell wardrobes which are specially designed to take nothing but hotel coat hangers.
Sensation in court. More of this later, I hope.
Any comments, David? 
It’s all been a bit solemn here at Samizdata of late, so here’s an extremely silly final titbit from my Slovak holiday.
One of the oddities of Slovakia for the visiting Anglo is their rule of putting “ova” at the end of every non-Slovak female surname. Julia Robertsova. Meg Ryanova. Gwyneth Paltrowova. Odd, but you soon get used to it. One of these ovas did make me smile, however. The Harry Potter books are big in Slovakia, as everywhere, with all the same symptoms being displayed as in Britain. “When’s the next one out?” say the kids. “Well at least they’re reading something” say the elders. But consider what happens on all the book covers to the name of Harry Potter’s creator J. K. Rowling.
Well, I liked it.
SCENE: BRUSSELS. OFFICES OF THE EU COMMISSION. THE COMMISSIONERS ARE HUDDLED AROUND A SHEAF OF NEWSPAPER REPORTS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.
LOUIS: Look at this…..100 per cent!!
HANS: It is truly amazing
DIRK: I wouldn’t believe it if I couldn’t see it with my own eyes
SVEN: Vote after vote, all the same; Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam……
HANS: Yes, and how many did that cowboy Bush get, eh?
LOUIS: Precisely, Hans
DIRK: That lucky, lucky bastard
LOUIS: ‘Luck’ had nothing to do with it, Dirk
SVEN: You’re right, Louis. The Iraqi people obviously adore him
HANS: If only we could get an endorsement like this
DIRK: We, too, have our own loyal supporters
LOUIS: Yes, but they’re both getting old now
SVEN: I don’t understand. What does Hussein have that we don’t?
DIRK: Well, the Americans actually pay attention to him
LOUIS: That’s not the reason, Dirk. No, the man is obviously a campaigning genius
HANS: Clearly
SVEN: 100 per cent. 100 per cent. I just love saying those words…
LOUIS: Sven, get your hands out of your pockets, this instant
SVEN: (Sheepish) Sorry, sorry. I..er…just got a little carried away
DIRK: We must find out Saddam’s secret
HANS: Yes, that must be our top priority
LOUIS bangs his fist down on the table
LOUIS: I know exactly what we must do. We must support the American attack on Iraq!
SVEN: WHAT!!??
DIRK: Louis, are you mad?
HANS: You cannot be serious, Louis
SVEN: What about our principles?
DIRK: What about stability in the region?
HANS: What about my investments in Baghdad?
LOUIS: Listen to me, you fools. We support the American attack, they go in and do all the fighting and depose Saddam….Then we bring him to Brussels and employ him as our Public Relations Consultant.
SVEN: Louis, that’s…that’s brilliant!!
DIRK: Damn, why didn’t I think of that?
HANS: Louis, you are a Born Leader.
LOUIS: I know, Hans, I know. And, one day, all of Europe will agree with you.
To add to the recent outburst of gun-related posting I think this will work a treat!
Unfortunately, it appears to be only an urban legend. But even the fact that such story has been coined is a good sign. We need more of those! Both, grannies and stories… 
Iraqi deputy prime minister and minister responsible for Iraq’s weapons programmes, Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish, speaking at a news conference in Baghdad, has invited the United States to send officials to visit Iraqi sites suspected of producing weapons of mass destruction. He said Iraq was not producing weapons of mass destruction and declared that U.S. claims that it was producing them were false.
“As I am responsible for the Iraqi weapons programmes I confirm here that we have no weapons of mass destruction and we have no intention to produce them.”
Damn, you are just so convincing, Abdul…
And my personal favourite – he also said Iraq would teach the United States an “unforgettable lesson” if it launched a military action to oust the government of Saddam Hussein.
“If the Americans commit a new foolish action against Iraq, we will teach them an unforgettable lesson.”
But, Abdul, honey, how would you do that? This is the US army you are talking about, remember? Lots of lovely, lovely modern missiles and other amazing equipment that actually works, not like your mucked up 1950s Soviet Scud Bs (ripped off V-2s). And besides, you just convinced me that the peace-loving Iraq has no weapons to speak of!? I am sooo confused! 
The Illuminatus post below puts me in mind of a little anecdote that was doing the rounds in the legal profession a few years ago. It concerned the case of a homeless vagrant who had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly in a public place. A trivial matter and quite unremarkable but for the sentence handed down by the Magistrate:
“I am going to discharge you on the condition that, for the next six months, you do not touch a drop of alcohol. And when I say ‘not a drop’, I mean not a drop; not even a glass of sherry after dinner.”
It may not be true but I like to think it is.
This is an article from the Guardian:
“The Angel of Death is stalking the streets and leafy suburbs of Maryland in the form of an unknown and, thus far, unseen sniper who has seemingly murdered up to six people in cold blood and for no apparent motive.
The fear of sudden death hangs like a shroud over the entire State under which its hapless and anxious citizens scurry from cover to cover lest they be the sniper’s next victim. This is the real America; rheumy-eyed, mistrustful and dangerous. A place where any passing stranger could be a stone-cold killer and where a violent and bloody death waits just around the next turning for it’s vulnerable and haunted citizens.
While the police search frantically to find the elusive marksman before he claims his next victim, maybe they should pause to consider whether they will ever really bring the guilty party to justice. For, regardless of who’s finger is actually pulling the trigger, the real culprit here is America itself.
Despite the increasingly horrific death toll, this is a nation which still clings rabidly to the absurd and outdated notion of allowing private citizens to own firearms. The simple fact that guns kill people is so banal in its obvious truth that it should not need restating anywhere; except that is, among the Republicans and their gun-lobby puppet-masters who will baulk at the merest suggestion of sensible regulation lest it blow a big hole in their profits. In the meantime, we Europeans can only scratch our bemused and wiser heads and wonder how many more painful lessons will have to be endured before America’s red-necked boys get their toys taken away from them.
But the gun-toting culture is only partially to blame because, in order to be truly lethal, it has to be combined with a reckless, inhuman cowboy capitalism with its injunction to the devil to take the hindmost and let the weak and frail die where they fall. In the land where the Dollar is King, the citizens are merely dispensable serfs providing nothing more than an opportunity cost to be measured on the bottom line against a cardboard cut-out target and a magazine full of dum-dum rounds. In America, breakfast is cheap but so is life.
For us on the safe side of the Atlantic, we can but give thanks for a more progressive political leadership that recognises these squalid dangers and defends us against their encroachment. Not so the average American who is left to twist in the pitiless wind while their elected officials busy themselves with the more lucrative task of propping up their nations corporate interests. When democracy can be trumped by chicanery, as in the Florida elections re-count, good faith lies bleeding. When you witness your own government flaunt the will of the international community, as expressed by Kyoto and the International Criminal Court, is it any wonder your dashed hopes and routed expectations may express themselves as murderous fury? If you hold democratic institutions up to contempt it is but a short step to holding life itself in contempt.
Pray that the Maryland police find this trigger-man quickly and let their be no more tragic victims. But pray also that the bereaved seek true justice by demanding that the murders of their loved ones be added to ever-growing list of crimes that must be laid at the door of George W. Bush”
Alright, I lied. This article did not appear in the Guardian. But it probably will at some point. Who knows, maybe I’ll send it in as copy.
Have we got fed up with Americans, especially for some reason Donald Rumsfeld, asking three questions in a row and answering them for themselves with three different but oh-so-poetically balanced adverbs instead of waiting for answers from the persons they’re talking to like normal people? Absolutely. Is Ally McBeal to blame for this, and in particular John Cage, also known as (I don’t know why) “The Biscuit” (who is otherwise very good fun, I think)? Possibly. Would we like them to stop? Immediately.
- Would you be willing to tell Miss Piggy she’s unclean?
- What would we do with all the one handed politicians?
- The Budweiser Chameleon. So you think The Birds were nasty?
- We’ve only got virgins for Martyr’s age 8 and under.
- It’s impolite here to throw rocks when someone asks to get stoned.
- Pancakes and a side of camel fat just doesn’t have that ring to it.
- It won’t help crime because toilet paper works in either hand.
- Ham and cheese sandwiches beat goats milk for lunch hands down.
- Bob Evans would sue for loss of livelihood.
- Playboy Magazine just wouldn’t be the same with Burqah gatefolds.
Blimey! It appears I am…
 What Farscape Character are you?…hmmmm. Whilst I do rather ‘admire’ Aeryn Sun (or rather Claudia Black), I’m not so sure I want to be her… I was rather hoping to be ‘Ka D’ Argo’.
Now, this is hilarious! It was linked on Heretical Ideas and deserves further dissemination (so to speak!). By the way, LOR stands for a Letter of Reprimand.
Warning! Can cause serious abdominal injury judging from the comments… I understand that somebody is already suing for replacement keyboard damaged as a result of “coffee spurting precipitiously (and uncomfortably) from one’s nose in the event of abrupt belly laughter”.
…or how to die in aeroplanes.
Brian fears that the bracing postion is no good in a plane crash. May I offer a few words of reassurance. This is how I see the pros and cons of passenger jets.
The most comfortable ride (i.e. the least stomach churning) is as close to the centre of gravity as possible, generally near or over the wings and away from the windows. But this is usually between the engines and fairly close to the main fuel tanks. Sometimes the wings snap off tearing this section of the fuselage to shreds.
On the other hand the noisiest and least pleasant ride is usually right at the back, it’s also near the wash rooms which means that the queue will be leaning on your seat. However, provided the tail section doesn’t snap off too high above the ground, this is where survivors seem most likely, especially if they unfasten their seat belts and are thrown clear of the blaze.
Closet smokers who put gum in the smoke detector whilst sitting on the loo having a puff always seem to survive (airlines don’t like to admit this). The forward section is where the best service and most legroom tends to be found, and it is easiest to tell if anything is going wrong (lots of shouting or drunken singing coming from the cockpit are a give-away).
Perhaps they should put laughing gas in the masks which drop automatically when there’s a sudden drop in cabin air pressure…
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
