Jeber’s

Hello Twitter friends

This is one great group of people. You really should consider joining us on Twitter.

Get your twitter mosaic here.

When social networks are one-way streets

Social networks are the latest rage on the internet among the technorati. I’ve joined several; Plurk, identi.ca, Popego, nearly all in beta or early development. The two I enjoy and use the most are Friendfeed and Twitter. These services are used by the people I follow the most, technology insiders like Chris Pirillo, Robert Scoble, Louis Gray, Dave Winer and Leo Laporte, to name just a few. Every day they post comments I like and comment on. But this is primarily a one-way street. The posts I make are rarely liked or commented on by them, even though most of them subscribe to me.

The reason for this is that we inhabit two fundamentally different worlds of interest.

Most of these people are in their 20s and 30s and are employed in technology or closely related fields. As I said, they are techo-insiders; they either work for companies heavily invested in cutting-edge technology or they own a brand identified with that world.

My world is a bit different.

My introduction to bits and bytes was in the 1970s, when I enlisted in the Army and was privileged to be assigned to the National Security Agency as a member of the Army Security Agency. There are two primary types of people employed by the Agency, cryptographers and analysts. Cryptographers write and break codes. They are mathematical wizards, comparable to programmers in the software industry. I was an analyst. We took the decrypted intelligence and studied it for patterns and created estimates based on the data we collected. We didn’t break the codes. We tried to make the intelligence useful to our customers. I used a Cray supercomputer for my work and was trained in Fortran and Cobol even though neither was necessary for analysis.

Shortly after I left the Army I moved to Idaho and was uninvolved with technology for the next 13 years. Those years saw the birth of the internet and the development of the personal computer. I was only vaguely aware of all this. I still loved technology but I was totally out of the loop.

It was around 1997 that I once again found myself in San Diego and around those who were fascinated by this fairly new World Wide Web. I was quickly hooked and it wasn’t long before I bought a shiny new Gateway computer with a massive 500Mhz processor and a membership in AOL. I learned as much as I could about computers and in a couple of years I felt I knew enough to want to share what I’d picked up. I found Chris Pirillo’s newsletter and shortly after that his forum. At the same time I joined Scot Finnie’s forum, also based on technology. There I met people whose interests mirrored mine. They were building their own computers and sharing websites they found interesting and informative. While I had accumulated a reasonable amount of knowledge about hardware and computer security that I could pass along to those in the forum, I realized at heart I was still an analyst. My primary interest was in making sense of the various opinions I encountered. I would read and listen to those with more knowledge than I possessed then try to distill that wisdom into something comprehensible to those just getting started. I truly enjoyed being able to pass along esoteric knowledge to those in need, in a form they could easily grasp. In a way I was performing the same function in the world of technology that a priest plays in the world of theology. I was taking obscure wisdom and attempting to make it intelligible to the common man. But where a priest is deeply involved in the world of theology, in the world of technology I was still an outsider. I had an opportunity to listen to those on the inside, but I was not a member of the club.

Primarily through my association with Chris and Scot I’ve been allowed to eavesdrop on conversations I might otherwise have never been privy to. I’ve learned who the influential are. They are those who have worked at Microsoft since the early days, they own start-ups, they write software, they often determine what will become popular among the rest of us users and what will fail to attract attention. They write for industry magazines or have websites that constantly rank in the top 100 of influential sites.

I’m not one of them.

I’m an analyst, a writer. I enjoy writing humorous commentary. My primary focus is social, not technological. I want to make technology understandable to others less out of a love of technology than a deep concern for people. Where once I had wanted to become a priest to bring god to the masses, now I’m a priest of the internet. I want others to get as much out of this medium as I have. My websites are concerned with the social issues I believe are important to humanity. I espouse social reform and technology plays a major role in that.

As a result, my contributions to social networking sites are seldom noticed and rarely commented on. The movers and shakers are focused on technology, I’m focused on humanity. We live in two different worlds that occasionally overlap. Social networks, for me, are one-way streets. I try to make my voice heard above the chatter about the latest service, the newest shiny gadget. But my input is of little value. They know I’m not one of them. I’m an interested voyeur, a watcher, a listener. I’m a simple techno-priest among the internet gods. My understanding is far below theirs.

Still, I love the networks I inhabit. I enjoy my role, even when I post an insight that’s overlooked but widely commented on when repeated by one of the insiders. I’ve learned to accept my position as a guest in the technorati society. I hope others who often feel left out of the conversational flow in their favorite network take my tale as encouragement to stay involved, keep connected. What you learn is as important as what others might learn from you if they would only listen. We can all drive on this one-way street. Some of us just have to accept that this particular road isn’t leading toward our destination. It’s still a fun ride, though.

Copy That

I’ve been a Michael Blieden fan since I first saw Melvin Goes to Dinner.  Next to Jerome Bixby (The Man from Earth) Michael is one of the best writers of natural dialogue I know.  He’s also a major comedic writer.  Here’s a sample:

Want more?  Check out Guacamole.

Don’t give up on love

It’s a greater force than we often realize.

Making music with Windows sounds

Now that’s entertainment

Thanks to Kevin Rose who brought this to my attention in Pownce.

Who do the Boolean?

Search engines do, logicians and academics do, and now you can, too.

Boolify.com is as plain and simple as Google’s search page. It’s so simple a child could do it, and indeed that’s the intended audience for this site. But adults can benefit from it as well. Boolean search is the application of Boolean algebra or logic to finding what you are looking for in Google or any search engine. Here’s a brief tutorial:

The Internet is a vast computer database. As such, its contents must be searched according to the rules of computer database searching. Much database searching is based on the principles of Boolean logic. Boolean logic refers to the logical relationship among search terms, and is named for the British-born Irish mathematician George Boole.

On Internet search engines, the options for constructing logical relationships among search terms extend beyond the traditional practice of Boolean searching.

Boolean logic consists of three logical operators:

• OR
• AND
• NOT

Few search engines nowadays offer the option to do full Boolean searching with the use of the Boolean logical operators. It is more common for them to offer simpler methods of constructing search statements, specifically implied Boolean logic and template language.

If you want to construct search queries using Boolean logical operators, you will need to experiment with search engines and see what happens when you search.

The full tutorial can be found here, but if you’re like me, the ability to try something with my own hands teaches me far more than reading about it. And if the experience can be made fun, so much the better. Boolify.com is both fun and instructive.

Assaulting robots

Thank goodness the little guy was able to pull it together enough to accomplish his final goal.

OfficeZilla adds functionality

Microsoft could stand to learn a thing or two from its competitors.  I just received this…

…this is George from OfficeZilla.com with an update about some new features I have added to your account that you can start using right away!

Feature #1: Name the modules
Some people like Forums some people like Message Boards… I am not going to hold it against you if you wished you could name a module something different! In the past that was impossible but now you can and it is really easy to do. Just login to your account, click on Admin then click on Configuration. On that page you will see a new link called Modules. Click there and you will see all of the modules, the checkboxes to turn them on or off and an empty box next to each where you can put in your own module name.

Feature #2: User Directory
Many companies and organizations want to have a user directory now there is a module just for that purpose called Directory. This lists all of your users so they can be found easily by other users. Users can exclude themselves from the directory by clicking on Options then clicking the checkbox off next to Directory. Directory is not automatically selected to display so be sure to click on Admin > Configuration > Modules to turn it on.

Feature #3: Private Messages
Sometimes an email is too much, private messages allow users to contact each other, you also have a tool in your admin that allows you to send personalized private messages in bulk. To use this you have to turn it on from Admin > Configuration > Modules. For now private messages (if turned on) are sent from the Directory module but sometime in the near future I will expand this to every feature. I am excited about this feature and how it can make your virtual office much more interactive

B of A

They’re bleeding money like a Silicon Valley startup, but they can still afford Google ads and free checking.

Bank of America ® – www.BankofAmerica.com – Free Checking Plus Online Bill Pay, Security Protection, ATMs & More.

Ben Stein Wins Money from Intelligent Design Community

My ability to appreciate absurdity is being taxed to the limit with this story;

Ben Stein, known for his lead role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and his Comedy Central show Win Ben Stein’s Money, believes in liberty and truth. In recognition of this, Biola University’s masters in science and religion program will present him with the 2008 Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on March 27, a month before the release of his major controversial motion picture, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In light of Stein’s contribution to the pursuit of liberty and truth, particularly as it relates to the field of Intelligent Design, he is being honored with the 2008 Johnson Award. The award ceremony will feature premiere clips from the forthcoming movie, the personal appearance of scientists who were expelled from their jobs because they are sympathetic to Intelligent Design, and will include a brief address by Stein.

Biola University, a Christian university in Southern California, established the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth in 2004 to honor legal scholar and Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, who was the award’s first recipient. The award recognizes Johnson’s pivotal role in advancing our understanding of design in the universe by opening up informed dissent to Darwinian and materialistic theories of evolution. British philosopher Antony Flew, once considered the most prominent defender of atheism in the English-speaking world, became the second recipient of this award in 2006 for his Socratic approach of “following the evidence where it leads” and abandoning atheism on account of design arguments.

The sentences I made bold almost made me spit coffee on my keyboard.

When a rationalist and believer clash

The outcome is no surprise to rationalists and atheists.

On 3 March 2008, in a popular TV show, Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India’s most “powerful” tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the “ultimate destruction ceremony” on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one’s life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.

In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow.

Read the full story and watch the videos here.

Atheists and free thinkers on Twitter, FriendFeed

Twitter and FriendFeed are becoming popular ways for like-minded people to communicate and keep in touch.

So how many of you use those services? It would be cool to share our usernames and build a network of atheist and free thinking folk.  You may also want to check out Twhirl as a Twitter desktop client.

I’ll go first. I’m jeber on both services. Among my Twitter friends are several atheists and free thinkers. Add them as your friends. Let’s talk.

Anti-Christian lawsuit against teacher can go to trial

This ought to be interesting.

A federal judge has ruled that the lawsuit against a Capistrano Valley High School teacher accused of fostering “hostility toward Christians” and promoting “irreligion over religion” can go to trial. Scott Martindale has the story at the Register:

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, says Corbett typically spent “a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience.” He railed against Christianity and Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit.

Corbett, who attended Monday’s hearing, declined to comment, but said in a prepared statement: “I am frustrated that my side of this story has yet to be heard, but there is so much at stake for me and my family that my best course is to follow my lawyer’s advice and wait until this is over before I comment.”

Corbett is also the adviser to the Free Thinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship student club at the school, and has been teaching for more than 30 years. His point above is a valid one – all the public has really seen is the family’s statement and the rally supporting the student. Hopefully the student’s tapes will be released sometime soon. (Source)

I doubt his comment will go far to counter the hysteria being fostered by the claims that “He railed against Christianity and Christian viewpoints.” That’s practically a felony in today’s Christian America. Heaven forbid (pun intended) students should ever be exposed to a reality that does not conform to religious belief. Can someone explain how this is any different from the desire of Muslims to have their own laws and practices recognized in this country? It will take more than a god to help America if we start caving in to every demand made by the religious that their beliefs be accorded any place in our secular government or public schools.

God is not dead…just unemployed

Omniscience

The rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins

There’s an interesting and valuable debate going on across several blogs concerning one of atheism’s most visible proponents, Richard Dawkins. It should hearten atheists and free thinkers to know that in both of those camps there are no demigods, no one who is above critique and criticism.

As best as I can find, the argument against Dawkin’s approach to atheism started here;

I (and apparently Jim Lippard) went to see Dawkins’ talk based on his The God Delusion, which I have critiqued before. I was impressed at the technique. It was definitely the very best Revivalist Sermon I have seen. I was not impressed by the content, nor by the fact that Dawkins was playing for laughs, applause and identification of Us versus Them.

In particular I was annoyed that those of us who do not condemn someone for holding religious beliefs were caricatured as “feeling good that someone has religion somewhere”. Bullshit. That is not why we dislike the Us’n'Themism of TGD. We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Way to go, Richard. Good bit of framing and parodying the opposition. Real rational.

I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. I doubt it.

What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion, and so must treat it as an evil, immoral, or simply irrational thing.

…Richard doesn’t want to understand; he wants to demonise, diminish and eliminate the Enemy, so as to make the Bright Us, the ones with the Red A, confortable. As you say, Richard, simply because a belief makes us comfortable, doesn’t mean it is true.

And while we’re on truth, let’s stop pretending all this talk of truth is scientific and not religious in itself. Scientific ideas are tested or not, reliable or not. They are never True, just good enough. To talk about Truth is to help yourself to the trappings of religion under the counter, as it were. And this is the final point I want to make about Dawkins on religion: he is trying to produce exactly the same effects as religion does. Social cohesion, derogation of the Other, ideas that everyone can take for granted. I wish it were the case that he was taking the scientific approach here, but at best he’s using the cachet of science to promote his quasi-religion.

To clarify: I don’t think there’s a god or a higher power. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn’t a religion yet, but it’s not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.

( John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts )

I certainly agree with the last paragraph, and I can understand John’s preceding comments.

The conversation continues at Joshua Rosenau’s blog Thoughts from Kansas;

Let’s repeat and paraphrase: I don’t know and don’t care if there’s a god or a higher power, any more than I care if there’s an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn’t a religion yet, but it’s not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.

Thinking, respect for other people, rational consistency and acceptance of the measurable aspects of the universe around us: these are a few of the things by which I judge a person, and that person’s arguments. Dawkins’s record on those measures is fairly poor, at least of late. This isn’t about being courtiers, it isn’t about shutting anyone up. It’s about Dawkins putting himself forward as the representative of science communicators, and of the non-theistic community. And it’s about him doing a poor job on both fronts.

While in a comment to Joshua’s post, Larry Moran says;

The word “respect” is subject to abuse. I’m sure there are lots of people you don’t respect for very good reasons. Let’s not adopt a knee-jerk model of politeness that requires us to “respect” everyone no matter how ridiculous or evil they might be.
Furthermore, let’s not confuse “respect” with a way of behaving that avoids confrontation. There are segments of American society who think that open disagreement with someone demonstrates lack of respect. That’s certainly not true in my case, nor in the case of Richard Dawkins. There are lots of people I respect even though I enjoy engaging them in heated debates. Dawkins is one of those people and so is John Wilkins.

If you judge a person by their “rational consistency” then you and I, and Richard Dawkins, are on the same side. We all recognize that people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins are seriously deficient in that category. Right?

I find myself agreeing in different degrees with all the sentiments express above. Atheism isn’t an organized club with rules and guidelines. There are some atheists who are confrontational and perhaps a bit extreme in their characterizations of religion and religious believers. There are others who do not wish to confront theists, those who adopt the attitude that everyone has the right to believe whatever they will, that all beliefs are subjective and personal. Perhaps these positions represent the extreme left and right wings of atheism. I’m not someone who supports extremism, I’m much more a moderate on most issues, seeing a world that is composed of shades of gray rather than a stark black or white view. There are times when confrontation is necessary, a form of self-defense against extreme opinions. Other times confrontation is unnecessary and even counter-productive. Too much bluster can mute the message by eliciting emotional reactions to the manner in which it was delivered.

So let me suggest a middle ground in this debate. Confrontational or not, moderate or extreme. it’s a matter of personal preference which approach you adopt and which you endorse. Dawkins may offend your personal attitude toward speaking or writing about atheism, but that does not invalidate his message. He will reach those unaware of the opinions of the more reticent among us. Meanwhile the more soft-spoken atheist will appeal to those turned off by Dawkins’ outspokenness. There is no right or wrong way to be an atheist. The joy of free thinking is that if you disagree with Dawkins or Harris or any of the other more “celebrated” atheists, you can post your own thoughts and opinions.

The one persistent comment in the above posts with which I absolutely agree is, “If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.” My only edit would be to replace “religions” with “any thought not your own you encounter”.

Horton Hears an Evangelical

Many thanks to The Exterminator for this wonderful bit of silliness/subtle wisdom:

Today is Dr. Seuss’s birthday. And so, in his honor:

n a place known as Whoville the folks got distraught
When Horton the elephant said what he thought.
“The oddest of oddities isn’t as odd
As people believing that there is a god.”

The Who Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists
The Who Vegetarians, Wiccans, and Nudists,
The Who Presbyterians, Baptists, New Agers:
All spread the sad news on their cell phones and pagers.

A Who Evangelical fell to his knees
And he said, “Oh no, Horton! I beg of you, please!
We always have liked you. We all think you’re swell,
And we can’t stand the thought that you’re headed to hell!”

But Horton just laughed and he wiggled his trunk.
The bible to him was a big bunch of bunk.
He meant what he said and he said what he meant,
“Religion is silly a hundred percent.”

The Who Evangelical let out a snort in
A very snide way most insulting to Horton.
“You say you’re an atheist? Here’s what we’ll do —
We all know that atheists are anti-Who —

We’ll drive you from Whoville; we’ll send you away.
Or else we will force you to worship and pray.
A person’s a person, no matter how small
But an atheist isn’t a person at all!”

But Horton just laughed once again even louder
And told all the Whos he would not take a powder,
Nor worship some stupid nonsensical being
That no one was hearing and no one was seeing.

“I will not be threatened,” he said. “It’s not funny.
I won’t trust your god with my flag or my money!
I will not allow him to influence science.
An elephant thrives on his own self-reliance!”

The Who Evangelical said, “My dear chap, sure
You think you’re so smart, but just wait till the rapture.”
The anti-Christ’s coming and then you will find,
That your friends are in heaven but you’re left behind.

“We cannot allow that to happen to you,
Because, after all, Jesus loves ev’ry Who.
You must accept God for the good of us all.
A person’s a person no matter how small.

“And though you’re no Who (you are just a big elephant),
God loves you, too. What you are is irrelevant.
He can destroy us if someone’s defiant.
A sinner’s a sinner no matter how giant!”

The Whos approached Horton, began to surround him.
If some of the Whos had their way, they’d have drowned him.
Some others thought maybe they might build a fire.
And stoning was mentioned among the Who choir.

But Horton was huge and avoided the crunch of them,
Picked up his foot, and he stepped on a bunch of them,
Hoped the survivors would give up their mission,
So here’s what he told them about superstition:

“The oddest of oddities isn’t as odd
As people believing that there is a god.
There isn’t a heaven, or hell you should dread.
A person’s a person — unless he is dead.”

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, It’s a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, And that enables you to laugh at life’s realities.”
Dr. Seuss

Good reads

Here are snippets from a couple of recent posts by Colin McGinn. Included are references to two recent publications of his, a book and a book review, the reading of which should offer even more food for thought.

MF

…religious belief does connect with a topic that does interest me: psychological manipulation. As it happens, I have a new book (very short) coming out on it next month, called–wait for it–Mindfucking. In it I analyze this concept, just as we analytic philosophers are supposed to. People I mention it to think I must be being funny or provocative, but it is actually quite a serious work, with many a ponderous formulation. I’m interested in how our minds can be manipulated–by other people, the media, governments, whole disciplines. Perhaps one’s main intellectual responsibility is to ensure that one’s mind has not been fucked by outside forces intent on manipulation and control.

Gloom

I just wrote a review of Against Happiness by Eric G. Wilson for the Wall Street Journal. It’s an interesting and provocative book, arguing that American culture is far too obsessed with happiness and not respectful enough of misery. The author admits to his melancholic tendencies, but celebrates them, rather than lamenting them. The general point is that gloom produces insight, creativity and depth, while happiness is bland and static. It raises the question in my mind of whether utilitarianism might have neglected the fact that melancholy can sometimes be a good thing–both instrumentally and intrinsically. Instrumentally, because it can lead to wisdom, creativity etc; but also intrinsically, in that a certain sort of melancholy might be good in itself.

A reader of this blog offered today to send me a copy of “From Mirror Neurons to Moral Neuropolitics“, a paper discussing some of the latest findings on the topic of empathy.

I’m quite eager to read it. Empathy ( from the Greek εμπάθεια, “to make suffer”) has always been a bit of a mystery to those who see life as simply a matter of genetic survival. Love and empathy often cause us to act in ways contrary to the imperative to pass along our genes. Humans will put their own survival at risk because of empathic feelings or thoughts. In this context, empathy could be seen as detrimental to evolution. Yet it is generally acknowledged as one of our most noble motivations. I’ll be posting portions of the paper, if permitted, for those of you who share my fascination with this quizzical ability we have to recognize, perceive and experientially feel the emotion of another without actually sharing those feelings or emotions.

It must be true, I read it on the internet

A lot of people think that way.  How many “Urgent: Virus Alert” emails have you received from well-meaning relatives and friends that warn how clicking on a certain link will clean out your address book or erase your hard drive?  Similar emails make the rounds every year.  None have been fact-checked.  Yet many of them have caused people to damaged their computers or worry unnecessarily.

Of course not all are that serious.  In fact some are quite humorous.  The only thing about them that’s misleading is the attribution.  Yet even an innocent joke can cause hard feelings between people.  Here’s an example of a comical email that’s been passed around a lot:

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

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, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Colony, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary.

2. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

3. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘favour’ 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’).

4. 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 US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

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

6. 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 adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left 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.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.

10. 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.

11. 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. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth – see what it did for them.

12. 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 McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. 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). Don’t try Rugby – the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. 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 that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

16. An official from Her Majesty’s Inland Revenue (i.e. tax collector) will be with you shortly to ensure the collection of all monies due (backdated to 1776). Until these are paid, there will be no representative government in the USA, in line with the policy: “No representation without taxation.”

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups and saucers (never mugs), and with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

18. Some tea has gone missing, and we expect it back. We’ll be searching Boston first.

God save the Queen. She should be saved, and only He can.

John Cleese

A quick search of Snopes reveales the truth about this letter.  It has a long internet history, it was written about eight years ago.  You can further investigate Snopes’ claims by checking their references.  (You’ll also find some comical rebuttals on that page.)  Another source of information on urban legends is ScamBusters.org.

Remember, just because it appears on the internet doesn’t mean the information is valid.  Think, and investigate claims, for yourself.

(Did you at least click on that link to see if I was accurate, or did you just take my word for it?)