Jump to content

A Letter To America


Lord Braykewynde

Recommended Posts

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

 

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

 

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

 

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

 

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

 

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

 

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

 

------------------------

 

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

 

 

-------------------

 

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

 

-----------------

 

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

 

----------------------

 

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

 

----------------------

 

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

 

--------------------

 

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

 

-------------------

 

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

 

-------------------

 

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

 

---------------------

 

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater. Filmed British history will be accurate and according to what has been written and acknowledged as fact and not according to Hollywood flights of fancy. The Americans did NOTseize the Enigma code machine as portrayed in "U-571". This fabrication caused a serious diplomatic incident between the British government and the American administration and any further and similar misrepresentations will occasion an immediate declaration of war on the rebels currently occupying all states, commonwealths, and territories known as The Americas. (This last clause added by one of Her Majesty's most loyal subjects.)

 

---------------------

 

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

 

---------------------

 

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

 

--------------------

 

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

 

-----------------

 

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

 

---------------

 

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

 

God Save the Queen!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 8:33 AM

 

Panorama prog was interesting last night ;-).....................Glad I'm in the UK :D

Oi! Why? I just showed exactly what happens when a majority folk adopt your approach to taxation.

 

The land of the free is the land of low taxation, and penniless down-and-outs. You can't have it both ways! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed Panorama last night but will try and watch it on the computer (broadband may not be quick enough though) but I thoroughly enjoyed LB's post. Thank you, it gave me a good laugh on a cold (although slightly warmer) and very snowy day , especially with the credit rating threat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patricia - 2012-02-14 11:20 AM........................................................ but I thoroughly enjoyed LB's post.

Agreed! :-)

 

.................................. especially with the credit rating threat.
Sarko's revenge! Bet he claims credit for it as part of his presidential campaign! :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 11:09 AM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 8:33 AM

 

Panorama prog was interesting last night ;-).....................Glad I'm in the UK :D

Oi! Why? I just showed exactly what happens when a majority folk adopt your approach to taxation.

 

The land of the free is the land of low taxation, and penniless down-and-outs. You can't have it both ways! :-)

 

Not quite Brian ;-).................My beef is with the way our taxes are wasted...........Our politicians need to listen to their voters for a change *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 12:16 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 11:09 AM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 8:33 AM

 

Panorama prog was interesting last night ;-).....................Glad I'm in the UK :D

Oi! Why? I just showed exactly what happens when a majority folk adopt your approach to taxation.

 

The land of the free is the land of low taxation, and penniless down-and-outs. You can't have it both ways! :-)

 

Not quite Brian ;-).................My beef is with the way our taxes are wasted...........Our politicians need to listen to their voters for a change *-)

 

 

 

You've confused me Dave.

 

I thought your approach to taxation was not to pay any ?

 

(lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2012-02-14 12:22 PM

You've confused me Dave.

 

I thought your approach to taxation was not to pay any ?

 

(lol)

 

I try my hardest Malc ;-)..................but if you breath you will always pay some kind of stealth tax *-)..............

 

I haven't work hard since I semi retired 8 years ago.................. my "raison d'etre" is to make the most of my what time I have left.....................B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 12:16 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 11:09 AM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 8:33 AM

 

Panorama prog was interesting last night ;-).....................Glad I'm in the UK :D

Oi! Why? I just showed exactly what happens when a majority folk adopt your approach to taxation.

 

The land of the free is the land of low taxation, and penniless down-and-outs. You can't have it both ways! :-)

 

Not quite Brian ;-).................My beef is with the way our taxes are wasted...........Our politicians need to listen to their voters for a change *-)

Ah, yes, but. That is exactly what those nice, right thinking, US Republicans were saying last night. They regard government expenditure on the provision of healthcare for the unemployed, as a waste of taxes. Let the unemployed, comatose, man die, because he had no health insurance. Like the man said, no job, no money, no insurance, and by implication, no healthcare. That is why you're glad you're in the UK.

 

It seems that what you are saying, unlike US Republicans, is that you don't regard spending taxes on healthcare as a waste. However, you do regard its expenditure on some other things as waste, so you have debased your income to avoid income tax, so your work can't contribute to the bits you see as waste. "Our" politicians do, of course listen, to what they hear as the majority demands. It is just that your view is at one extreme of the range, so they aren't persuaded. But that is democracy.

 

Somehow, to me, that seems ever so slightly illogical. First because if you did pay tax you'd still keep about 80p per £1 extra earned, and 80p is 80p. Second, because as a protest it can't work - no one will ever notice. Third, because you in any case contribute through all other forms of tax. Fourth, because the only loser is you. But, if you are happy with this arrangement, I am happy for you. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 4:23 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 12:16 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 11:09 AM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 8:33 AM

 

Panorama prog was interesting last night ;-).....................Glad I'm in the UK :D

Oi! Why? I just showed exactly what happens when a majority folk adopt your approach to taxation.

 

The land of the free is the land of low taxation, and penniless down-and-outs. You can't have it both ways! :-)

 

Not quite Brian ;-).................My beef is with the way our taxes are wasted...........Our politicians need to listen to their voters for a change *-)

Ah, yes, but. That is exactly what those nice, right thinking, US Republicans were saying last night. They regard government expenditure on the provision of healthcare for the unemployed, as a waste of taxes. Let the unemployed, comatose, man die, because he had no health insurance. Like the man said, no job, no money, no insurance, and by implication, no healthcare. That is why you're glad you're in the UK.

 

It seems that what you are saying, unlike US Republicans, is that you don't regard spending taxes on healthcare as a waste. However, you do regard its expenditure on some other things as waste, so you have debased your income to avoid income tax, so your work can't contribute to the bits you see as waste. "Our" politicians do, of course listen, to what they hear as the majority demands. It is just that your view is at one extreme of the range, so they aren't persuaded. But that is democracy.

 

Somehow, to me, that seems ever so slightly illogical. First because if you did pay tax you'd still keep about 80p per £1 extra earned, and 80p is 80p. Second, because as a protest it can't work - no one will ever notice. Third, because you in any case contribute through all other forms of tax. Fourth, because the only loser is you. But, if you are happy with this arrangement, I am happy for you. :-)

 

Do you think by voting we actually change anything Brian? 8-)...............we have a democracy in name only.............is there any real difference between Labour/Conservatives/Liberals *-)...........the only difference I've noticed since I bothered to get interested in politics is the colour of their ties ;-).........they all do the same thing at every election........tell us a pack of lies to get in, then carry on the status quo *-)

 

In fact do we need to bother voting? as we're told what to do by Europe anyway........as the Abu case demonstrates 8-)

 

We need to have a referendum not just about Europe but about what we are prepared to pay for ;-)........It'll never happen because that would be democracy (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 4:48 PM..................We need to have a referendum not just about Europe but about what we are prepared to pay for ;-)........It'll never happen because that would be democracy (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

I think it would be what is called direct democracy, rather than parliamentary democracy. For all its failings I prefer the parliamentary variety to what I imagine would be the result of allowing every member of society a direct vote on every issue. First, because most people seem only to know what they are against, and not what they are for. Second, because most people are only interested in a very narrow range of issues, so the less popular (put possibly extremely important) issues would be liable to be decided by very small, quite possibly self interested, groups. Third, because the "popular view" is invariably manipulated by selective, often biased, media coverage, so the media would have, IMO, a detrimental influence on outcomes. Fourth, because the truth on any issue is incredibly difficult to get to, so most would cast their vote based on ignorance rather than knowledge. Finally, because taking the electorate as a whole, the majority seem incapable of distinguishing between self-interest and national interest.

 

So, the idea that switching to direct democracy as a means of government could resolve issues any better than parliamentary democracy is, to me, about as convincing as the concept of the chocolate teapot! If attempted, I think it would gravitate towards something as grotesque as took place in Cambodia, with social fragmentation leading to factionalism, and ultimately to persecution. It is an ideal idea for an ideal world, just like communism, or anarchy. The world, sadly, ain't ideal, so IMO we're better off with the parties, and politicians, we can at least partially see, than we ever could be with totally unseeable and unanswerable interest groups seeking to skew outcomes to their own undeclared ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 5:47 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 4:48 PM..................We need to have a referendum not just about Europe but about what we are prepared to pay for ;-)........It'll never happen because that would be democracy (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

I think it would be what is called direct democracy, rather than parliamentary democracy. For all its failings I prefer the parliamentary variety to what I imagine would be the result of allowing every member of society a direct vote on every issue. First, because most people seem only to know what they are against, and not what they are for. Second, because most people are only interested in a very narrow range of issues, so the less popular (put possibly extremely important) issues would be liable to be decided by very small, quite possibly self interested, groups. Third, because the "popular view" is invariably manipulated by selective, often biased, media coverage, so the media would have, IMO, a detrimental influence on outcomes. Fourth, because the truth on any issue is incredibly difficult to get to, so most would cast their vote based on ignorance rather than knowledge. Finally, because taking the electorate as a whole, the majority seem incapable of distinguishing between self-interest and national interest.

 

So, the idea that switching to direct democracy as a means of government could resolve issues any better than parliamentary democracy is, to me, about as convincing as the concept of the chocolate teapot! If attempted, I think it would gravitate towards something as grotesque as took place in Cambodia, with social fragmentation leading to factionalism, and ultimately to persecution. It is an ideal idea for an ideal world, just like communism, or anarchy. The world, sadly, ain't ideal, so IMO we're better off with the parties, and politicians, we can at least partially see, than we ever could be with totally unseeable and unanswerable interest groups seeking to skew outcomes to their own undeclared ends.

 

So we persevere with the status quo *-).................I obviously have more faith in the collective wisdom of the country than you do Brian ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 5:57 PM............................I obviously have more faith in the collective wisdom of the country than you do Brian ;-)

Undoubtedly, you do. It isn't so much their wisdom that worries me, it is their knowledge, how little they use it in arriving at their opinions! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 6:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 5:57 PM............................I obviously have more faith in the collective wisdom of the country than you do Brian ;-)

Undoubtedly, you do. It isn't so much their wisdom that worries me, it is their knowledge, how little they use it in arriving at their opinions! :-D

Lack of knowledge...............who's fault is that then?..............Maybe our wonderful politicians think treating the electorate as mushrooms is the way to go *-)

 

Thats probably most of the problem............If we knew the truth..........then none of them would get elected :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 5:47 PM

 

The world, sadly, ain't ideal, so IMO we're better off with the parties, and politicians, we can at least partially see, than we ever could be with totally unseeable and unanswerable interest groups seeking to skew outcomes to their own undeclared ends.

 

Or could it be that your preference isn't the preference of the majority or maybe by leaving it to the politicians it absolves yourself, and others, of any blame and can apportion any blame to the said politicians (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 6:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 5:57 PM............................I obviously have more faith in the collective wisdom of the country than you do Brian ;-)

Undoubtedly, you do. It isn't so much their wisdom that worries me, it is their knowledge, how little they use it in arriving at their opinions! :-D

 

 

Brian

 

Do you mean "their knowledge" - or lack of it ?

 

:-(

 

Seems to me our imperfect political system works reasonably well - alternating between the loonie left and raving right, as long as one side isn't in government too long.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-14 7:09 PM...................Or could it be that your preference isn't the preference of the majority or maybe by leaving it to the politicians it absolves yourself, and others, of any blame and can apportion any blame to the said politicians (lol)

Well yes, of course it could be. But then the same would be true for any democratic system of government, would it not? One might find one's opinions are not those of the majority, or even the governing minority, and one might then indeed absolve one's self from blame for the outcome, beit politicians, or the great unwashed, who made the decision. However, leaving all decisions to a mass vote is surely the ultimate cop-out? Who could possibly be held responsible for those outcomes?

 

But, beyond that, who would decide the issues to be voted upon? How would the votes be cast and counted? Who would adjudicate? Who would implement the decisions? Who would monitor progress? This is total cloud cuckoo land.

 

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Ah, the sound of the electorate at prayer. I do hope you don't believe this stuff! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but did anyone understand what they were talking about?

 

However, looking at history the comparison between the number of times a nation changed its way peacefully to the number where change was by violent means does suggest we have a long way to go. it also could indicate that democracy is not the most efficient means of government but who am I to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2012-02-14 7:33 PM

 

Seems to me our imperfect political system works reasonably well - alternating between the loonie left and raving right, as long as one side isn't in government too long.

 

;-)

 

Another supporter for the status quo then Malc ;-)....................I must be the only revolutionary on the forum :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 7:36 PM

 

 

But, beyond that, who would decide the issues to be voted upon? How would the votes be cast and counted? Who would adjudicate? Who would implement the decisions? Who would monitor progress? This is total cloud cuckoo land.

:-D

 

 

And, more importantly these days, how much would it cost to vote on 'everything' ?

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2012-02-14 7:36 PM

 

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-14 7:09 PM...................Or could it be that your preference isn't the preference of the majority or maybe by leaving it to the politicians it absolves yourself, and others, of any blame and can apportion any blame to the said politicians (lol)

Well yes, of course it could be. But then the same would be true for any democratic system of government, would it not? One might find one's opinions are not those of the majority, or even the governing minority, and one might then indeed absolve one's self from blame for the outcome, beit politicians, or the great unwashed, who made the decision. However, leaving all decisions to a mass vote is surely the ultimate cop-out? Who could possibly be held responsible for those outcomes?

 

But, beyond that, who would decide the issues to be voted upon? How would the votes be cast and counted? Who would adjudicate? Who would implement the decisions? Who would monitor progress? This is total cloud cuckoo land.

 

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Ah, the sound of the electorate at prayer. I do hope you don't believe this stuff! :-D

 

Needless to say deciding every small issue is a non starter at the moment ;-) .........but given technology we could actually vote on a weekly basis....................and have a tv show to announce the results :D

 

A kinda Jeremy Kyle for the thinking classes (lol) (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-02-14 7:48 PM..............Needless to say deciding every small issue is a non starter at the moment ;-) .........but given technology we could actually vote on a weekly basis....................and have a tv show to announce the results :D..................

Who decides what is a small issue? Who phrases the questions? "Given the technology", well indeed, because unless given it (presumably as a result of decisions not taken by direct democracy: chicken, egg?), many would be disenfranchised - unless you mean to exclude the poor. Just think, have a referendum on benefits, and all those on benefits would also be entitled to vote! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patricia - 2012-02-14 11:20 AM

 

Missed Panorama last night but will try and watch it on the computer (broadband may not be quick enough though) but I thoroughly enjoyed LB's post. Thank you, it gave me a good laugh on a cold (although slightly warmer) and very snowy day , especially with the credit rating threat.

 

Well, juat got round to viewing this programme on iPlayer and guess what? As I am in France it will not allow me to view it!! Is this Big Brother? How does the BBC know I am in France? If they know, how come Sky are allowing me to watch their programmes (not complaining, of course!)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...