Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
- we like this sort of thing,
- Dr North has been frothing at the mouth as he rails against our general ignorance on matters European and appalling flippancy whenever we have the temerity to comment on the topic (getting it all wrong due to our appalling ignorance - see above) and
- He might actually have a point, given the comments in this article,
The Schengen and NATO overlays make it a little messy, but who ever said European politics was supposed to be simple?
UPDATE: Thank you MatGB - Croatia added, to EU Wannabes, but NOT to NATO.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
A: Because they can't be bothered to write "F*ck the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland".
Or they might, if it had been this amiable gentleman who had made a passing reference to something in an obscure speech in a language you don't understand in a place you've even heard of let alone been to.
Monday, September 25, 2006
I was not aware that our wayward younger cousins in the former colonies do not commonly use the phrase"the US and UK are two nations divided by a common language",
for emphasis."with knobs on"
In particular, the UNHCR is frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that - HORRORS! - those wishing to claim asylum need to be able to show passports. From the Independent this morning:
However, the new laws, which will also oblige asylum-seekers to provide proof ofWell, yes but...
identity within 48 hours of their arrival in Switzerland, have been sharply
criticised by the United Nations refugee agency, which says that it is common
for genuine refugees not to have any means of identification.
In fact no. This is deliberately disingenuous. Looking at the detail, the more peculiar it is that UNHCR should have an issue. Here is the text of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees (it's a large pdf, I'm afraid).
The relevant section is Article 31 (1):
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.Perhaps it would be helpful to have a look at a map of the area.
The more astute of you will have noticed that Switzerland is rather notably landlocked. Arrival at Switzerland's borders therefore cannot be done from the sea. To get into Switzerland, our asylum claimant must either travel by land through one of Italy, Austria, Germany or France or they have to fly in. So....
If our claimant travels by land, he cannot claim asylum in Switzerland because he should have done so in one of the four European Union countries through which he must have travelled - he has not "come directly from a territory where [his] life of freedom was threatened".
If he travels by air to fly direct into Switzerland, he would have to have had a passport in order for the airline to allow him to board in the country of departure.
So, either he cannot claim asylum in Switzerland or he should have a passport. I am struggling to see exactly why - in SWITZERLAND's CASE - this should be contentious.
Friday, September 22, 2006
NO THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT THAT.I think that is what the public wants.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Sir, The Pope has made a distinction between Christian reason about God, and Islamic submission to a transcendent God ( reports and letters, Sept 16, 18, 19 and 20).
But the Church dealt harshly with Giordano Bruno and Galileo when they dared to reason.
Calvin denounced Servetus because he dared to reason about the divinity of Christ.
And that would be Michael Servetus (1511 - 1553). Whilst we are about it, do you know exactly how Calvin denounced Servetus? No? Here he is:
I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.
Does calling for the Pope's execution constitute a fervent wish not to persecute him? No? So what's your point then?
Today the Baptists demand the same submission to the Bible as Muslims do to the Koran.
And? Not even the Pope insists that the Bible is the literal, direct and unalterable word of God. There are some clues in the titles of the main books: "The Gospel According to St. Luke". As such Christianity is open to critical interpretation in a manner that is often treated as the worst heresy by Islam if applied to the Koran.
The Book of Common Prayer threatens any "publick Reader in either of Our Universities . . . or any other person in either of them", who dares to question the 39 articles.
"Either of Our Universities"? What about Hull?
Darwin delayed publication of the ideas in Origin of Species for 20 years because he feared denunciation by clerics.
And? Your point is? Specifically as relevant to the attitude of Christianity to scientific enquiry NOW, as opposed to 200 or more years ago.
With the second letter, what one gains on the swings of brevity is blithely cast away on the roundabouts of more concentrated stupidity:
Sir, If Islam had a co-ordinated hierarchy (such as the papacy) leading the religion, perhaps we would have less violence. Maybe this is the time for Islam to consider the reintroduction of the caliphate, or its modern-day equivalent ( letters, Sept 15), so that Islam can provide a united front to the world.
DAVID E. MICHAEL
The swords of the Prophet, as well as those of the caliphs, signify that they were real people living in a real, very hostile world. The swords were used to defend the fledgeling Muslim community from a tidal wave of aggression unleashed upon it by a pagan society. It is easy to level allegations of aggression on someone fighting for his rights against great odds.
You go out of your way to build bridges with people of different views and beliefs and have quite a few religious friends. You believe in the essential goodness of people , which means you’re always looking for common ground even if that entails compromises. You would defend Salman Rushdie’s right to criticise Islam but you’re sorry he attacked it so viciously, just as you feel uncomfortable with some of the more outspoken and unkind views of religion in the pages of this magazine.
You prefer the inclusive approach of writers like Zadie Smith or the radical Christian values of Edward Said. Don’t fall into the same trap as super–naïve Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge who declared it was okay for clerics like Yusuf al–Qaradawi to justify their monstrous prejudices as a legitimate interpretation of the Koran: a perfect example of how the will to understand can mean the sacrifice of fundamental principles. Sometimes, you just have to hold out for what you know is right even if it hurts someone’s feelings.
What kind of humanist are you? Click here to find out.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
I'm not offended by a satirical game, even if it's in poor taste.
However, I do find some of the material posted on your website to be thoroughly ignorant and offensive. If you don't understand the difference between the attack on Fallujah and the 9/11 attacks (regardless of your general opinion of the war in Iraq) then I can only say that I pity you.
I don't want to get TOO much into a political debate here, because I believe it's largely explained on the website, but drawing a parallel between a sanctioned military act which results in the fore-known deaths of innocents and a non-sanctioned, terrorist, act which results in the same is not mere sophistry. There are many attrocities committed in this world and many would be called acts of terrorism, were it not a recognised state power committing them. I think this is a totally valid and debatable argument.
... a sanctioned military act which results in the fore-known deaths of innocents and a non-sanctioned, terrorist, act which results in the same ...
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Last night's return to the "School Dinners" fray showed him to be on spectacular form. The first episode of the new series raises, as one might expect, a number of issues.
Firstly, it demonstrates clearly the parlous condition of the infrastructure of the state. Jamie's School Dinners plan rests on the assumption that fresh food can be cooked and served to children in each school. This assumption was shown to be somewhat flawed in Lincolnshire, for all but 3 out of 286 primary schools in that county.
Secondly, it shows the degree to which people's ability and/or willingness to JFDI seems to have been eroded, both in the state and private sectors. We could posit causes of this lamentable decline in the nation's collective "spunk" (for want of a better word) till the cows come home. Jamie, to his immense credit, gives us the DS Pink solution and identifies clearly what is missing: leadership.
No kitchen at the school? Go and find a commercial kitchen nearby. There's a pub, with a good chef, lots of kit and bugger all trade of a weekday lunchtime during termtime.
No hot cupboards? Divert some of the LEA money (aside - that was being spent on what exactly?) to provide hotboxes.
Input costs too high? Find a local produce wholesaler or farmer and cut out the middle man.
Can't scale up from a single school to an entire county? Organise a day out at a castle and invite school headteachers, contract caterers, pub landlords, farmers and wholesalers and ask them all to plot themselves on a big map.
In short, get the apparatus of the state out of the way, make some noise, let the market in the form of sentient individuals do its stuff and JUST F*CKING GET ON WITH IT.
There was a spotless quote from one contract caterer:
(from memory) I had no idea that there was such a big market with no
There is one other hugely interesting aside to this: all these individuals with all the opportunity for mutually beneficial trade seemed to be creating a sense of excitement, of connections between people, of the fundamental goodness of human interaction, of "community" damn it. Humans want to make relationships and trade with other humans around them. The fascinating thing was that the LEA - even at the level of the county - could not make this happen by dictat. You have to delegate right down to the lowest level and let people get on with it. The LEA simply cannot arrange contracts for 286 schools at once and no caterer could take on that load in its entirety.
But there is a darker side. Whatever one may think about the eponymous (he must be nearly eponymous by now) Mr Oliver and whatever one may think about the importance and soundness of his cause, he is a walking demonstration of the massive structural faults in our system of government. Mr Oliver is a little short of a single issue terrorist who has inflicted the most insidious form of "blackmail by television" upon the current administration.
Harsh? Perhaps. Fair? Certainly, as I shall show.
- Jamie Oliver is a "celebrity". Household name: Check.
- He is campaigning on an emotive issue, that relates to the wellbeing of our children. "Think of the Children": Check.
- He brings his own media team to his meetings with government ministers. TV Coverage: Check.
But aside from the imminent collapse of Western Civilisation caused by the demand for more than 37p/meal/child, Jamie Oliver has done one more thing, the benefits of which will flow for many years to come. He has spoken truth to power. In the words of Luke, Chap 1 v51-52:
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in theHe managed to get some time with the PM. They discussed the fact that children, or the parents of same, were spending huge amounts on junk food and snacks, which scuppered the take up rates of the proper food being provided. He asked, possibly unreasonably, what might be done to ban children from bringing junk food into schools. The PM, who - to be fair to him - is or ought to be largely powerless on something of this nature, muttered something about a voluntary code of conduct regarding the advertising of junk food to children. We can all see that this is a ridiculous and entirely ineffectual answer. But only someone of the calibre of Jamie Oliver would even consider, let alone dare, responding to this with the dismissive remark:
imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and
exalted them of low degree.
"That's a bit wet, Tony".If Mr Oliver were to receive a knighthood, it would be richly deserved for this rejoinder alone.
In fact, he might be up for something higher than a knighthood. I quoted Luke 1, 51-52. Guess what is in v53....
"He hath filled the hungry with good things"
Sunday, September 17, 2006
As a business I'm sure the proprietors would prefer Dogs' Delight to Dog's Delight but any usage of the apostrophe would do, unfortunately there is not a grocer nearby to donate one.
Quite why the third person plural form of a perfectly innocent and unconspicuous transitive verb should require its subject to have an apostrophe I feel unqualified to say.
That he should have been able to entice His Excellency the former High Commissioner of Australia to subscribe this particular outbreak of grammatical wrongheadedness is a mystery of sufficient magnitude that one worries if there is some sort of conspiracy afoot.
Whilst we are about it, I'm not convinced that a comma is correct between "do" and "unfortunately" in the quoted sentence above: I suspect one needs a colon at the very least.
P-G Verdict: Stay behind at playtime, young Thersites. A few more latin participles wouldn't go amiss.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Minorities were never treated as full citizens in caliphates. Some forced Jews and Christians to wear identifiable visible insigna, excluded them from educational and government posts and, subjected them to a jizyra (shame tax) which, sometimes between 80-150 per cent of the unbeliever's income, was intended as a punitive measure that would eventually force conversion in order to survive.
The khalifahs . . . were neither unjust nor harsh to their Christian subjects. And we find that the tolerance of these khalifahs, though it did not go as far as putting unbelievers on an equal footing with Muslims, allowed both Christians and Jews to fill important places and often to amass great fortunes.
"The life of our saint (John of Damascus) will show us the curious sight of a Christian father of the Church protected from a Christian emperor and able to attack that emperor's heresy without fear, because he lived under a Muslim khalifah."
Your correspondent claims that millions of Muslims want a caliphate. I do not want one. No Muslim I know wants one.
If the Shia and the Sunni cannot agree on a president, how in the world can they accept a caliph?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
The more astute readers of this blog will have detected a certain fondness for mathematics on the part of your author. Perhaps we should see what we make of all of this.
Sir, The successful reconstruction from scratch of one of the electromechanical decoders that broke the German Enigma machine (report , Sept 7) sends a buzz of excitement to everyone determined to preserve Bletchley Park, the code-breaking HQ, as a vital part of our wartime heritage. Sadly, Hut No 1, where the machine was originally housed, has already fallen to the demolition gang.The transport complex is likely to follow. These buildings were needed to garage vehicles and plan the logistics of transporting the 12,000 people who worked at Bletchley. Records reveal that, in one week in 1944, there were 28,321 coach journeys covering 25,138 miles and using 115 drivers — just to ferry the workforce back and forth to billets in the Buckinghamshire countryside.
Clearly, this was a transport project on the grand scale, and preserving the complex in recognition of the support services who kept the codebreaking machinery whirring is essential. Despite having other problems on her mind just now, it is to be hoped that Tessa Jowell will find some way to help.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
There is a letter in the Times today that deserves attention. It is from a Mr Imran Waheed, the media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain.
Let's have a look at this letter, keeping in mind exactly what it is that Hizb ut-Tahrir actually wants:
Sir, By conflating the events of 9/11 with the caliphate (editorial, Sept 11), you ignore the growing aspirations of millions in the Muslim world for the return of the caliphate through solely political work. You wrongly portray the caliphate as some kind of medieval militant aspiration.Not medieval? Article 7c sounds pretty medieval to me:
Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam.
No militant aspiration? What then is the purpose of Article 184 in your constitution? ("4. With states that are actually belligerent states, like Israel, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all measures and dealings with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us - whether an armistice exists or not - and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State. ")
Or Article 56? ("Jihad is a compulsory duty ( farD) on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus, every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad. ")
Well, that's "representative" as long as you aren't female, a slave or a non-Muslim (Article 19). Actually, whilst we are about it, does any kind of morally reasonable state require to say anything about the status of slaves?Muslims envision the caliphate as a state with a representative government
Well, possibly yes, but the prospects for abuse are extraordinary given the powers granted to them in Article 76 (" The muHtasib has the authority to judge upon violations, at any place as soon as he gains knowledge of these violations without the need to hold a court session. A number of policemen are put at the muhHtasib's disposal to carry out his orders and to execute his verdicts immediately. "), particularly as there is effectively no right of appeal under Article 74 (" There are no courts of appeal or cassation, because all judgements are of equal standing. Thus, once the judge has pronounced the verdict it becomes effective and no other judge's decision can overturn it, unless he judged with other than Islam, disagreed with a definite text in the Qur'an, Sunnah or Ijmaa' us-SaHaabah or it appeared that he judged in contradictory to a true reality. ")and an independent judiciary,
Unless it doesn't feel like it because once you have been elected Caliph, you are there for life (Article 38) and, because you ARE the State (Article 35) and Leader of the Armed Forces (in which everyone serves - see Article 56) and appoint all officers down to Brigade level (article 61), exactly who is going to make you do anything that you might not exactly be minded to?where the ruling elite is subject to the rule of law,
technology is embraced,
As long as it serves some sort of military purpose:
(Article 55: "All factories of whatever type should be established on the basis of the military policy")
Of all the sh*te in this letter, this is probably the biggest and most shameless lie. Leaving aside Article 21 ("Any party not established on the basis of Islam is prohibited."), I really don't fancy be a non-Muslim in the caliphate. Non-Muslims:minorities are treated as full citizens
- have no right to participate in the election of the Caliph (Article 26),
- nor to be Caliph or his assistant (article 42) ,
- nor to be part of his entourage (Article 49)
- or indeed to have any ruling function whatsoever (articles 19, 87 etc etc)
- may not be judges (article 69)
- even when elected as representatives to the Assembly, may not influence the legislative process but can only express views regarding the misapplication of Islamic Law (article 103)
- have no custody rights whatsoever in a marriage to a Muslim (article 118)
- and are subject to a head tax for all these wonderful privileges (article 140)
I thought this wasn't supposed to be a medieval throwback.as they were in the past
and where men and women embrace roles that give no superiority of one sex over the other.
Oh please. Following on from your idea that minorities are going to have a smashing time, let's look at what you think about the fairer sex.
- are obliged to obey their husbands (article 116)
- may not rule in any capacity nor be judges (article 112)
- and may go about in public, only "on condition that nothing of the women's body is revealed, apart from her face and hands, and that the clothing is not revealing nor her charms displayed." (article 113)
Of course the caliphate is not built on the Western secular model,
You have the effrontery to accuse anyone - even Tony Blair - of expounding disinformation? Spare me.yet to dismiss it as some "centuries-old" medieval notion as Tony Blair recently did is an example of the disinformation expounded since 9/11.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
1. One book that changed your life - the hardest question first.
To be honest, I am generally a despicably contented bourgeois lackey whose life has not been through much in the way of upheaval. I've always thought that most of the ideas of the "Left" do not survive contact with the real world so haven't even had the benefit of an epiphany in the way of a sell-out to mammon. That said, I don't really think my very first job was in quite the right field and I wasted a considerable number of years before changing the emphasis of my working life to something a little more in line with my natural talents. For that I think I must blame the eponymous " What colour is your parachute?". Like the world renowned " Atkins Physical Chemistry", there is a new edition of this book produced pretty much every time you blink.
2. One book that you've read more than once
"A day in the life of Bob, the man on the moon ", by Simon Bartram. And I've read this one a good deal more than once. In fact I have read this book every day, and sometimes twice a day, for the last 18 months or so. Worse still, the edition we were given came with a CD. A CD of the author reading the book. So we can listen to it in the car.
3. One book that you'd want on a desert island
The "Desert Island discs" premise is that you are actually condemned to live out the rest of your life, alone, on this wretched island and that attempts to escape are forbidden and/or inevitably doomed to some sort of "Groundhog Day" failure. That would clearly colour one's choice of reading material. In the absence of this premise, I'm opting for the hope of survival and escape. So something like this is order of the day. The whole series is generally diverting. That or indeed anything as long as it is not "Bob, the man on the moon" (see q2 above).
4. One book that made you laugh
Round Ireland with a Fridge. Simply absurd premise, but somehow manages to touch on the more important things in life, especially the random kindness of strangers.
5. One book that made you cry
Norm never cries and he is a sissy lefty. I'm not going to admit to this either...
6. One book that you wish you had written
Saki's short stories . His prose is exquisite, his plotlines beyond compare in intricacy and originality, his wit razor sharp. I remember one English lesson when I must have been aged about 11 when our teacher came in, sat down and just read "The Stalled Ox" to us. That was the point at which my eyes were truly opened to the power of the English Language and I recall thinking to myself "If only I could write like that...". I still think that.
7. One book you wish had never been written
In terms of the generally disastrous consequences of any given piece of writing, it would be hard to beat Marx's " Communist Manifesto". (Actually, one could say much the same for the last 3 Tory party manifesti). I note that our ruthless dog-eat-dog world has ascribed a value to this particular tome - you can buy it used for a penny...
8. One book that you are reading at the moment
Lady P-G's latest magnum opus. I shall revisit this page and insert the relevant amazon link following publication. Watch this space.
9. One book that you've been meaning to read
I am hideously badly read. One could fill a library with important material that I really ought to have read but haven't. Let's start with " The Welfare State We're In" and hope that no-one tells James that I obviously haven't bought it yet.
10. Five others that you'd like to do this
1. Seaty!. Obviously.
2. Timmy! Surprised that DK didn't nail him whilst he was about it.
5. I would love to nominate the Zombie, but i doubt, if you will pardon the pun on his not-a-blog name, that he has "time"
There we are. It took a while, but we've got there.
Monday, September 11, 2006
We are all American.
We are all Balinese and Australian.
We are all Spanish.
We are all Londoners.
In fact, whilst we are at, we are all Iraqis.
Actually, let's face it, we are all Muslims.
We are hairdressers; we are teachers and schoolgirls; we are all people trying to help others left destitute by earthquakes.
We are many things, but the one thing we are not, is Hezbollah.
Hundreds of members of the Royal Signals and girls of the Y Signals Auxiliary Territorial Services (ATS) worked at radio sets, covering 24 hours a day, recording vague and faint messages in code transmitted by the German forces. They worked in isolation and had no idea of the importance or destination of their "scribble"; all they knew was that tight secrecy was essential.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Sir – My husband fathered our first son at 47, when I was 32, a second son at 49 and a daughter at 52. All were healthy babies who have now grown up and produced eight babies between them.
I question the statistics of older fathers causing autism.
Valerie Geller, Woodford Green, Essex
They found that if the father was aged 15 to 29 when a child was born, the risk of autism was six in every 10,000 children. If they were aged 30 to 39, then nine in 10,000 children suffered autism, going up to 32 in 10,000 for fathers aged 40 to 49.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
- Things that scare me
- School Fees
- Horror Movies
- Timid women driving small cars who seem entirely unable to pull out when passing me on my bicycle
- Dave Gorman - saw his "Googlewhack" show at the Fringe a few years back and my sides ached for days afterwards
- Private McAuslan
- Harry Hutton
- Sanctimonious lefties who seem to think that individuals will be happier if you remove from them (forcibly) all hope of advancement.
- the taste of paracetamol, even the small traces of it in things like lemsip
- Chewing gum, and the people who chew then casually discard it on a pavement, where it gets stuck to your shoe, or (worse) on a bus or train seat where it ruins your suit.
- travel insurance policies
- Partial Differentials - came jolly close to stuffing up my degree over this
- gmail's autoformat guessing algorithm
- going to get my teeth scraped by a dentist
- thinking how to celebrate my wedding anniversary
- Bragging about my Tuscan holiday
- Bag all the Monroes
- Run a marathon or, worse still, a trialthon
- Earn enough to have a properly reckless and adventurous retirement whilst I have sufficient life remaining to do so. Or win the lottery and go and teach physics or maths somewhere
- The cube. Not very quickly (like about 2 mins), but I can still do it.
- Swallow with my mouth open - legacy of a great deal of painful orthodontic work as a teenager. Try it: it's not easy at first.
- put both my legs over my shoulders. (Well, I used to be able to do this - I haven't - dared - try for a while)
- One of those "irregular verbs": I have an independent mind. You are an eccentric. He is round the twist.
- "actually, all things considered, really a very nice chap" , despite my many attempts to disguise it.
- In all, I can't do better than the summary that Platoon Commander at RMAS gave me. He suggested that the box in which I ought to be delivered to my Company Commander should be labelled with a strong warning:
"Give this man a crystal clear 'left and right of arc', tell exactly what will happen to him if he strays one inch outside either and then for God's sake don't watch what happens inside them."UPDATE: It turns out that I can in fact do better: "Educated and Erudite". I'll buy that, perform a proper low-bowing curly doffing of the Mess-Undress P-G Peacock Feather hat and dispatch marching bands in the direction of James, noting that he ought to keep his pecker up and stick with it. His contribution is worthwhile and much appreciated in the grace-and-favour appartment. (See new link in blogroll as proof)
- Write "thank you" notes within a reasonably polite time frame
- Listen to more than one thing at a time. If I am watching the telly or listening to the radio, I physically cannot hear other people talking (not to me at least anyway)
- Your gut instinct
- Your kids. They tell you all kinds of stuff.
- The sort of silence that you rarely get the chance to experience these days, except in remote rural areas. Absolutely still early mornings at the top of a decent Alpine sky resort for example - the snow deadens sounds rather well - or a good patch of Highland grouse moor (without the shooting, or the expletives of the gamekeeper).
- the grating sound made by pieces of raw pottery rubbing together.
- The Today programme if you are already in a bad mood and a hurry.
- anyone who tells you that he/she is the sole authority on a given topic, that you should discard and ignore anyone and everyone else no matter how much such persons appear to be talking complete shite and no matter how much such others (whom you are implored to ignore) appear to you to be being entirely reasonable. This lady springs to mind as an apposite example.
- to play the piano, or just about any musical instrument
- to speak a foreign language really properly fluently
- to fly an aeroplane or a helicopter (or both)
- Grilled Duck Breast with Puy Lentils and Pancetta
- Proper "terrine", made with verifiable chunks of things, rather than those overly rich smooth pate-type things they often try to pass you off with.
- Lady P-G's entirely historic and legendary signature dish : her tarte au citron.
- Decent French red wine, usually either Bordeau or Burgundy
- Coffee - far too much coffee
- Hot Ribena
- The Dukes of Hazard
- Captain Pugwash
- Tomorrow's World
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
It would appear that they were right:
|You scored as Finland. Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.|
In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
created with QuizFarm.com