Friday, August 3, 2007

This year's competitors

In the Upper Class Twit of the Year:

Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith has an O-level in chemo-hygiene. Simon-Zinc-Trumpet-Harris, married to a very attractive table lamp. Nigel Incubator-Jones, his best friend is a tree, and in his spare time he's a stockbroker. Gervaise Brook-Hampster is in the Guards, and his father uses him as a wastepaper basket. Oliver St John-Mollusc, Harrow and the Guards. And finally David Miller, Mayor of Toronto, thought by many to be this year's outstanding twit.

Picture via Canadian Taxpayers Federation


mariposa said...

Oh God, I love Monty Python! Loved it when Oliver ran himself over.

Reminds me of years ago when I was home from college, and my mom and I were sitting watching Monty Python. I was just about in tears, I was laughing so hard, and she looked at me with a straight face and said, "You find this funny?" Oh well, I guess they're an acquired taste.

Definitely a race that Mayor Miller should enter. I'd bet him to win.

Elaine said...

I want to nominate
Ignatieff for that award. I am sure he has the best chance of winning. He is so typical left. His heart felt confession stating he shouldn't have supported the war, and he wants everyone to forgive him. He could change his mind next week.

Ignatieff knows that dainty Dion is going to get his ass kicked to the curb, and he wants the liberals to vote his ass into the sugar bowl as the next liberal leader. I do so hope they do that. Exchanging a wimp for an idiot will not change the fortunes of the liberal party.

To state the man is stupid would be an understatement. He came right out and asked what the left want him to say that will make them love him.

Mike, don't you get it? That is what is wrong with the left, they will go which ever way the wind is blowing for a vote. To have a strong country, you need someone who knows how to make decision and works in the best interest of the people. That wouldn't be anyone on the left.

Canada is growing up, they realize that giving eveyone what they want has a big price tag. Canada is finally getting an identity, and they see through the bullshit that the left has foisted upon them.

eng said...

I was home from college, and my mom and I were sitting watching Monty Python

That happened to me too! It was "And now for something completely different".

The scene of the bathing suit models, that eventually pans to Cleese in his own woman's bathing suit saying "and now for something completely different" got her rolling her eyes a little at least.

Then the scene with the hand sneaking across the screen to pull the fig leaf came on. After the tug of war splits the leaf to show the old lady saying "smut like this should not be shown on screen!", I think Mom went off to bed.

Yes, an aquired taste!

Honey Pot said...

I loved that one 'the holy grail', just a reminder not to take life too seriously. It is a journey, and you might as well have fun.

Elaine said...

Toronto suffers 50th homicide of 2007

That Miller is going to be hard to beat. That would be 50 times this year he will have gave the same speech about the merits of the gun registry, and the need to ban guns.

I haven't heard the last speech yet, but no doubt it will be just as stupid as the last 49.

Miller and his socialist minions will now be sitting around thinking of how much more money they can give to the gangs to bribe them to stop killing each other.

eng said...


Toronto has had as many murders already this year, as all of England and Wales (with 20 times the population and a handgun ban) have had by guns in an entire year (2005).

Banning cars would reduce automobile deaths, or do you dispute that too? We try to make cars safer instead of banning them because they are a necessary evil.

Can you make the "necessary evil" argument for everyone having access to handguns? If not, then you have to make the case that banning cars would not stop automobile deaths. Or support the handgun ban.

Just because David Miller (whom I loathe) supports something does not automatically make it wrong.

MapMaster said...

Why on earth would anyone have to make a "necessary evil" argument, unless to make the decision whether or not to own a gun for themselves? It's up to Miller and others like him who want to confiscate that decision from everyone else to make an argument … to each and every person, by the way, from whom he wants to make that confiscation. Good luck with that.

eng said...

Why on earth would anyone have to make a "necessary evil" argument
Because cars would be banned due to the number of people they kill, if it weren't for the benefits they bring. Therefore, the necessary evil argument says we won't ban cars.

The phrase "confiscate that decision from everyone else" sounds like you view any kind of regulation of society as an offense to your freedom. Do you? Would you prefer anarchy? It would not last long before all the gangs set themselves up as quasi governments i.e. warlords and you would be free to die opposing them.

Is there any kind of regulation by government that is acceptable to you? Taxes? Health care? Traffic lights? Legal system for contracts and torts? Legal system for criminals? What sorts of crimes would you allow to be regulated?

MapMaster said...

Because cars would be banned due to the number of people they kill, if it weren't for the benefits they bring. Therefore, the necessary evil argument says we won't ban cars.

That's an answer to another question altogether, one which I don't see the "necessary evil" of asking in the first place (nor, pointedly, do I understand what regimen decides who gets to ask it). And the word "confiscate" is precisely correct, even if it does stir uncomfortable associations, wouldn't you agree?

In answer to your other questions, I'm not sure what you mean exactly by regulation given your examples. But I'll respond anyway: I don't consider any regulation acceptable that confiscates anyone's right to their person, property or peaceful pursuit of happiness. That includes income and property taxes at the least, as well as health care as it is currently constituted. Traffic lights? I can live with those, as they don't constitute any practical infringement on anyone's rights, although I could debate the system under which they're administered if I had the time or inclination.

Legal system for contracts and torts or for criminals? I don't know if I'd call that a regulation, but in any case I do support those because the legal system for those matters is intended precisely to defend those rights I have cited (whether they succeed is another question altogether). If by "regulation" you mean what I think you mean, eg. pollution, etc., which purport to defend people's rights, they are unnecessary and often counter-productive. The question that needs to be asked in those situations that those kinds of regulations are meant to address is simply: has a crime been committed and how will it be prosecuted.