John Cleese On Terrorism

There's nothing funny about terrorism, and unfortunately in our life time we have seen the worst terrorist attack in history (September 11) and the biggest terrorist attack involving Australians (the Bali bombings) but comedians make comical observations on life, including terror threats.

Below is John Cleese's take on Europe's handling of terrorism - with Australia thrown in for good measure (we are part of the colonies after all). I'm a huge Monty Python fan (I'm  a proud owner of a "I'm not dead yet." t-shirt - thanks Katie) and when this was sent to me via email I had to share it. Whether you like Monty Python or not, John Cleese's take on how countries deal with drama is amusing.

Here it is:

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2011:

BY JOHN CLEESE
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved.." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

-- John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person

Odd Spot - The Age

The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio is using artificial plaster eggs to fool its mother flamingoes so they don't wear themselves out laying replacement eggs when keepers take them away to be incubated.

*As published on the front page of The Age newspaper 16/07/11

Quote Of The Day

"There are three kinds of people in the world, the wills, the won'ts and the can'ts. The first accomplish everything; the second oppose everything; the third fail in everything."


-Eclectic Magazine

DEBATE: Should Australia Have A Carbon Tax?

Carbon Tax; two words that separate, don't really mean much, but together mean a lot to the Australian people and thanks the the Gillard governments announcement of the carbon tax price ($23 per tonne) on Sunday, those two words of Carbon Tax aren't going away anytime soon. The Gillard Government announced that from July 1st 2012, the Carbon Tax will take place. Here, writers Emma Gardiner - Deans and Stephen Davies debate the reasons why you should and shouldn't vote for the carbon tax.

AFFIRMATIVE: Emma Gardiner - Deans

Carbon dating: Why you should fall in love with the new carbon tax


I’m embarrassed to admit that I had to Google ‘Carbon tax’.

It’s not that I don’t care or am completely ignorant; it’s just that it’s quite complicated.
Trading schemes and caps aside, the upshot is that the carbon tax penalises polluters. Most companies only feel pain in their bottom lines so it makes sense to incentivise them where it hurts.

This scheme places the Australian government at the vanguard of revolutionary policy; a welcome change considering how thoroughly backward it’s been in the past (see: indigenous rights).
The Labor government has made some brave moves over the past three years – laptops in primary schools, maternity leave provisions, saying sorry at long last – and this is one more step in the right direction. Now, to get the mining tax across the line … but I digress.

This is not greenie-wishy-washiness. This is a tax based on the scientific facts surrounding global warming and dwindling fossil fuel reserves. It’s not about environmentalism; it’s about inventory management, which is a relief considering that lightweight environmentalism is fundamentally flawed. Many so-called ‘environmentalists’ fill their trolleys with organic food packaged in plastic, shove it all in a green bag and then drive home in their petrol-fuelled cars.

It’s fashionable to pretend you care but it’s an entirely different proposition when caring becomes a fiscal decision.

The carbon tax will increase the price of all sorts of things; basically anything that requires fossil fuels to make, transport or power. No one will be able to weasel their way out of paying the $26 tax per tonne of carbon dioxide. And you know what? You want to pollute? You should be made accountable.

In the same way you have to pay rates for rubbish collection, water, roads and other civic necessities, you should have to pay for infringements on air and water quality.
Imagine a world where there are safe bike paths, an abundance of solar, wind and water powered energy sources and the air and water is clean.

Contrast this with a world where the roads are strangled with traffic, power comes from coal or oil and the air and water are increasingly polluted.

Hang on; that’s the way things are now.

Go ahead. Tax me. I want the government to increase the pressure on me – and everyone else – who is too lazy, complacent or indifferent to make the necessary improvements to their habits.

Emma is the Founder and Creative Communications Director of Blossom Media.
She is communications specialist with over 10 years of media experience. She has a BA Communications from the University of Newcastle and started her career as a radio producer with ABC Newcastle, later moving to Sydney to become a print journalist on both consumer and trade titles. She has spent the past seven years working in consumer PR. Today Emma is the part-time PR Manager at Unique Tourism Collection and freelances for Toga Hospitality. She project manages Daily Addict xChange, a weekly women’s networking event created in partnership with Merivale and is a regular contributor to DailyAddict.com.au. She is the Founder and Publisher of SheGoes.com.au, a travel blog for adventurous people.


NEGATIVE: Stephen Davies

At school I did work experience at a vet. This usually involved holding things and mucking out cages. But sometimes I'd get the dreaded call to help comfort a dog while it was euthanised. The sight of someone's best friend, left behind to shuffle off alone, terrified, is horrible. My job was to pat and talk to the dog so they wouldn't be scared during the injection, and while they faded away. It haunts me today. I still remember the sad, resigned looks in their eyes.

I know that look, and I see it every time I look at Julia Gillard. How high were the hopes when she ousted Kevin Rudd, and how low the polls a year on. There are many reasons for this, but one that hangs around her like an albatross - the carbon price.

Australia needs action on climate change. It's right the government has adopted Ross Garnaut's suggestions (partly) to price carbon despite saying they wouldn't (in completely different circumstances than the current minority government) and Kevin Rudd ‘walking away’ from the ETS (he didn’t really).

Why, then, could anyone be against it? When it was announced, there was much hysteria from people who only a year earlier sent Rudd's approval rating plummeting for 'shelving' the ETS. The public is fickle. They don't care that the carbon price (it's not really a 'tax') is the first step toward that ETS.

The public would rather listen to Tony Abbott, an atavistic DLP-throwback whose entire platform as an alternative government rests on opposing, sniping at and (impossibly) promising to repeal a carbon price.

Abbott has been travelling the country, promising that it will drive up the cost of everything from sunshine to babies' smiles, destroy industry and end civilisation. While government support erodes, we have no similar scrutiny of his policy - throwing money at big polluters. This will actually cost 'battlers' much more.

We should oppose the carbon price to upset Abbott. Anyone who has read 'Battlelines' will know he isn't quite the idiot he seems. But he'll do anything and say anything to get into power. By focusing on an unpopular policy, one he doesn't even have details of, he's going to coast into the Lodge. By shelving this sensible policy we'd be cutting down on one of Australia's main sources of noxious emissions - the lies about it coming from our ascendant opposition leader.

Stephen Davis is an editor and writer based in Melbourne. You can read his blog here and follow him on Twitter at @stephendevice



If you would like to contribute to a debate, please contact Clare at g_o_a_s@hotmail.com or send her a message via Twitter