WTF?
An early day motion calling for the US government to slap the wrist of one of it’s talkshow hosts made a throw-away joke that featured the Sikh Golden Temple. BenSix reports…
Johnny Carson’s unfunny protege made a joke about Mitt Romney’s wealth a few days ago, which involved suggesting that the Sikh Golden Temple was his “summer house”. No biggie. Damn, I forgot! We’re living in a world where things that should be no biggy are treated like biggies – hugies, in fact. Indians are furious; a bloke is suing Leno and in England an MP has proposed this motion…
That this House notes with concern the sketch on the NBC Jay Leno Show where the most sacred Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple, was disrespected by Jay Leno when it was referred to as GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s summer home; expresses concern and regret that this depiction of the Golden Temple as a home of the rich shows a complete misunderstanding of the Sikh faith and is derogatory to Sikhs across the world; believes that these comments are not acceptable to all those who believe in respect for all religions; calls on Jay Leno and NBC to apologise to all Sikhs for this disrespectful depiction of the Golden Temple; and further calls on the Government to make representations to the US government that while recognising principles of freedom of speech there should be more understanding and respect shown to the Sikh faith.
There’s so much to laugh at here. The claim that it was a “depiction of the Golden Temple as a home for the rich” misunderstands the joke – it’s not “isn’t it funny that rich people live there” but “wouldn’t it be funny if they did”. The idea that Leno was implying something about the nature of the Temple itself suggests that viewers of a prime-time American talk show would be aware of what it was. I’m not the only one who thinks that’s funny, no? Then there’s the cry that his jests were not acceptable to those “who believe in respect for all religions”. Well, deal with it. The sponsors of the motion might feel that offending religious sensitivities is beyond the pale but that’s no reason to insist that we follow their lead. They don’t seem to have grasped this, though, as evidenced by their breathtaking call for our government to lecture a nation because of a wisecrack that one of its comedians voiced. I’m no fan of the U.S. state but I have to admit that they’d be richly justified in sending back a note that reads, quite simply, “GTFOI”. Depressingly, this motion has gained the support of 6 MPs: Virendra Sharma; Jeremy Corbyn; John McDonnell; Kelvin Hopkins; Alan Meale and Peter Bottomley. May the Gurus frown on them.
The Sun is a little bit peeved today because it’s freedom of speech is being restricted again and can’t report on someones sex life (istyosty link). I can certainly see why.
A SENIOR executive at a British bank bailed out by the taxpayer has gagged The Sun from revealing an affair with a colleague.
High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Henriques leapt to his defence in a ruling that delivered another blow to free speech in the UK.
Why shouldn’t the Sun be able to report on someones carnal activities? This person worked at a bank that received taxpayer money. We should be able to know everything about them. Doesn’t that judge know who we are? We’re bloody taxpayers, don’tcha know?
The married banker, paid a substantial six figure sum, began the illicit affair before the credit crunch erupted and plunged the country into recession.
Look! He’s paid not just a six figure sum, but a ‘substantial’ six figure sum. What is the judge playing at? Doesn’t he know the bigger the salary the more right we have to know about who he is sticking is knob in?
He was present when the Government was forced to spend almost £1trillion to prop up the banks. Ministers are axing thousands of civil servants to pay for bankers’ mistakes and more than 50,000 workers in the sector have lost their job in the past two years.
This is outragous! He was there when the government gave the banks all of *our* money. Where ‘there’ is, is irrelevant. Was he present at the bank, present in government, in his girlfriend at the time the government handed over the whopping big cheque? It doesn’t matter. He was ‘there’. We demand to know. He is connected to the government, however remotely so he must’ve been telling us not to cheat on our spouses. He must be hypocrite. How can we tell unless we know who he is?
If he’s not connected to the government or not, he gets paid a big fat wodge of dough so he must be a role model for the kids. Either way the public must know who he’s been shagging, where, when, how often and in what positions. It’s in the public interest. This information being kept from us could be a game changer in the way we live our lives.
These people cannot get away with dicking about on their poor, poor wifes without retribution. And I want the Sun to deal it.
One bank insider told the Sun: “Given what was going on at the time they got together, I’m surprised either of them had the time or the energy.”
Jesus snapping arseholes! There’s more! He got paid a big bundle by a bank and he still had free time away from the bank. What were they paying him for? Surely he must’ve been skiving, or bonking on company time. It’s the only explanation. As for having the energy to for all this horizontal excercise? Well, there’s only one explanation. Drugs.
Yeah, ok. Drugs might not be the *only* explanation for someone having enough energy to bonk their girlfriend, but how do we, the public, know unless this man is exposed to public scrutiny?
I don’t know about you but I won’t be able to sleep at night thinking about how this man that worked at a bank was shagging someone that wasn’t his wife… er, without reaping the vengeance of the public.
I demand to know!
The Advertising Standards Agency has decided on whether the ‘Athiest Bus’ has broken any rules.
And I would like to paraphrase here…
Fuck off you witless god-bothering cocks.
Oh, alright. Here’s what they really said
But the body concluded the adverts were unlikely to mislead or cause widespread offence and closed the case.
But
[ASA] said it assessed 326 complaints. Some claimed the wording was offensive to people who followed a religion.
326 people are offended by someone asking them if they’ve ever thought that there might not be a god. That’s what that line is saying
While some of the complaints claimed the adverts were offensive and denigrated people of faith, others challenged whether they were misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God “probably” did not exist.
What about all the ads and posters about god and church and stuff? According to their logic, they would have to substantiate the claim that there is probably a god. Which is just as hard.
And if one person can satisfactorily prove to me that there is a god beyond doubt, I will eat my blog.
Via
Craig Murray has a new book out, The Catholic Orange-Men of Togo and other conflicts I have known.
This time though, he is self publishing, due to Schillings sending letters scaring publishers on behalf of people like Tim Spicer, a mercenery of the British in Iraq, who don’t like to have their questionable actions questioned, and don’t want to go to the courts when they are.
Anyway, the book is available for free (who says you never get anything for nothing , eh?), or in hard back, direct from Craig or from Amazon.
Ten Percent has a review and it’s fair to say, it’s good one, too.
Via
