At first glance, this appears to be a vintage ad by the “Soda Pop Board of America” extolling the virtues of drinking cola at an early age. It’s been circulating around the internet for quite a while, during which time many sites have angrily responded to the claims made in the ad.
For instance, the Queen Anne Chiropractic Center declared that the ad demonstrates “just how wicked the Mad Men of yesteryear were.” The parenting blog babble.com wrote: “We all know that, on occasion, advertisements can offer some fairly crappy advice. Back in the day, though, ads had no shame.” And NaturalNews.com offered the ad as evidence that, “Soda companies, much like drug companies, have relentlessly tried to convince parents that forcing their products onto their children is a smart thing to do.”
I could go on, but I’ll cut to the chase: the ad isn’t real. It’s just a very successful vintage-ad parody created in 2002 by RJ White, who explains its full provenance thus:
About seven or eight years ago, I made this fake ad, exhorting parents to give soda to their babies. It was done on a bored afternoon when J.D. Ryznar asked for someone to make that very specific thing on his livejournal. I whipped it together, posted it to the web, joke over.
A couple of years later- it started showing up online, in those weird lists that pop up every so often with a “Oh man, ads sure were strange back then, weren’t they?” theme. Thing is, those ads are largely real and mine is not and very obviously so.
White links to the original livejournal post that inspired him to create the ad. His ad seems to be currently enjoying a fresh wave of popularity thanks to tumblr and pinterest which are presenting it to new audiences, many of whom (once again) seem to be accepting it at face value as a genuine vintage ad.
The Soda Pop Board of America does not exist, and neither does the address listed on the ad.
Former RAF pilot was the penultimate surviving member of a group of 76 prisoners who escaped a Nazi prison camp in Poland during second world war
The penultimate surviving member of a group of allied soldiers who carried out “the Great Escape”, the famous mass breakout from a Nazi prison camp in the second world war, has died in Perth at the age of 101.
Australian Paul Royle, a former RAF pilot who was one of 76 prisoners who made it through a 110m long tunnel to escape their captors in Poland in 1944, passed away on Sunday.
Royle’s son Gordon told Daily Mail Australia that his death meant that former squadron leader Dick Churchill, from Devon in the UK, was “the last survivor”.
Of 73 airmen who were recaptured, Royle and Churchill were among just 23 who were spared execution by a firing squad reportedly acting on the orders of Adolf Hitler.
The story of the breakout was first portrayed by a fellow prisoner at the Stalag Luft III war camp, the Australian fighter pilot Paul Brickhill, in his book The Great Escape.
Royle has spoken of his intense dislike of the 1963 Hollywood film of the same name, telling ABC last year this was “because there were no motorbikes … and the Americans weren’t there”.
A day after emerging from the tunnel to the sight of a snowy pine forest, Royle and his British comrade Edgar Humphreys were recaptured then brutally interrogated by Nazi officers.
Royle remained mystified as to why Humphreys and other were subsequently killed and he was not.
“Edgar and myself were together when we were recaptured and behaved in the same manner,” he told Air Force News in 2004.
“There’s no reason why one should live and not the other. Rationality didn’t come into it. I haven’t a clue as to why I wasn’t chosen.”
The former flight lieutenant had also detailed his role in the months-long escape plot, which included surreptitiously disposing of soil dug from the tunnel through his trousers under plain sight of guards in the prison yard.
“You’d have to be very careful because the soil from the tunnel was a different colour from the soil on the surface mostly, and you would get a suitable place to put it where there was similar soil,” he told ABC.
Let’s be honest this frenzy of “compassion” for Syrians can make Australia even less safe.
The Abbott Government said yesterday it would take in an extra 12,000 Syrian refugees.
Know two things about this response to the invasion of Europe by these “refugees” from the Third World — there are now more than 4,000 people every day and half of them claiming to be Syrians.
First, Australia’s intake will not stop this invasion. No, the word has spread to as far as Nigeria and Bangladesh that Europe’s fences are down. It has been suggested that Iraqi airlines have even had to put on an extra three flights a day to Istanbul to deposit more Iraqis on the edge of Europe and its riches.
Look at the “refugees” you see crashing through Europe’s weak borders, or check the statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Is it normal for 72 per cent of “refugees” from war to be men — and predominantly young, fit men you might expect to defend their country rather than flee it? And consider: how many relatives will they later send for? So, no, Europe’s crisis will continue until it, too, turns back the boats. What checks are being carried out to ensure these refugees are actually from Syria?
But, second: in making this gesture, we risk making Australia even less safe.
Amazingly, even the people loudly demanding we take in more Syrian Muslims implicitly concede that danger. Sydney Islamic leader Ahmed Kilani warned that favouring Christian refugees over Muslim risked more terrorism here. Is that a threat?
“The Government keeps saying it is worried about people being radicalised. What do you think young Muslims are going to think when they see who can come in and who can’t?”
Maher Mughrabi, foreign editor of The Age, said the ominous same.
“Arab communities of this country are already bitterly divided by this (Syrian) conflict and the Government’s response to it.”
“If Muslims here feel that the blood of their brothers and sisters in Syria does not cry out as loudly as that of other communities, I worry about the long-term consequences.” Is that a warning or a threat?
Or take Australia’s Anglican Primate, Archbishop Philip Freier. He wants 10,000 more Syrian refugees, but advises against bombing the Islamic State for fear that Muslims here could launch an “asymmetrical response” — a terrorist attack. Once such people assured us there were too few jihadists to worry about. Now they warn there are too many to offend.
Oh, and Australia should import potentially more?
True, Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday winked that he will take only Syrian refugees from “very persecuted minorities” — code for Christians. Yet even Abbott dared not say so openly. In fact, he flinched at the first hostile question at his press conference, saying he was also thinking of “Muslim minorities”.
The bottom line is that a country should be able to pick and choose who they want to enter their borders and who they don’t. How well are these refugees going to assimilate into the lifestyle of their adoptive country? The vocal minority (of any viewpoint) or the media should not dictate immigration policy to elected governments. The UK prevents the entry of “refugees” from France and yet this passes almost without comment, yet Hungary and Macedonia are subject to media wrath for doing exactly the same thing.
But if the polls are right, Labor will next year form government and take over this immigration program and its foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, insists the “basis of our policy should not discriminate on religion or ethnicity or gender”.
Has Labor learned nothing from the Fraser government’s blunder in responding with “compassion” to Lebanon’s civil war in the 1970s?
Then, too, government ministers privately urged prime minister Malcolm Fraser to accept only Christian refugees, given how Lebanese Christians had thrived here. Fraser ignored them and nearly 20,000 Lebanese Muslims, many from poor and tribal areas, soon came instead.
The consequences are with us today. True, most are good citizens, but gun crime today is rife in Sydney suburbs with large Lebanese populations. Crime rates are high.
More seriously, of the 21 Australians jailed for terrorism offences, at least four were born in Lebanon and seven were born to Lebanese families.
Let’s not make the same mistakes all over again.
Australia’s political class has for years been too dishonest to admit that when you import people, you import their culture. People importing their culture is fine, but all too often their hatreds come with them.
But our politicians must ask pragmatic questions when deciding which of the millions of the world’s refugees to help.
Who will make best use of our help by fitting in? And who will best repay our charity by enriching Australia, not hurting it? You can’t make such guesses without considering culture and religion — factors that influence the behaviour of the refugees’ future children, too. A study in the UK has suggested that immigrant’s children are more likely to radicalised. They feel that they neither fit the lifestyle of their home or adopted country and are easily swayed by persuasive and radical argument. However, you cannot refuse to offer assistance to people for fear of what their children “might” do!
I know, this makes a politician seem mean and “racist”, but what is their highest duty? To merely seem good, or to protect Australia’s best interests?
Sgt Alexander Blackman was filmed by a colleague carrying out the killing in Helmand. MoD/PA
Sergeant Alexander Blackman, formerly of the Royal Marines, is launching a new appeal against his sentence for murdering an unarmed Afghan “insurgent” in 2011. He carried out the killing while inadvertently being recorded by a comrade’s helmet-mounted camera. He quoted Hamlet as he did it.
The campaign on his behalf has gathered considerable steam over the years. It is, in my opinion, based on a number of terrible arguments and hijacks public angst over the very real hardships faced by soldiers and veterans throughout recent British history.
“There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you c*nt. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us,” he quipped in the grainy video around which his trial hinged.
The recording of the murder, even in the limited form in which it has been made available to the public, is shocking. Because of its inhuman content, but also because of the apparently casual manner in which the wounded man was dispatched. On its own merit Blackman’s conviction is uncontroversial, an open and shut case.
Marine A, as he was known during the trial, was a highly trained, highly experienced senior NCO in one of the world’s foremost infantry units. The fact is he simply cannot have been unaware of the laws of war when he pulled the trigger with a Shakespearean flourish.
The arguments put for his release or pardon have, from the off, been so utterly ridiculous that I resent having to destroy them over and over again.
For example, the wretched idea that he is a hero, that his heroism should absolve him, or that all soldiers, sailors and airmen are somehow heroes and therefore should all be exempt from the law is so flaccid that I should not need to bring it up. Simply put, it is the kind of arguments that one would only expect to hear from child.
Similarly, while I agree with his supporters that Blackman had been under pressure, that he had endured a brutal tour and that he was likely afflicted by post-traumatic stress, it is space cadet territory to suggest any of these factors could feasibly clear him of murder.
Even Blackman’s new argument that this was a “split second decision” gone wrong is dubious. Stressed, he clearly was, but he was obviously capable of reason and logic enough to urge his underlings to keep quiet because he had just broken the Geneva Convention.
Likewise the argument that he is a scapegoat of the establishment (which seems to love nothing more than a spot of extrajudicial killing, if recent drone strikes are taken into account) cannot be taken seriously given that various members of said establishment appear to be fully behind him.
In fact, his chief celebrity backer Frederick Forsythe boasted only recently of his Cold War work for MI6. Forsythe is many things, including a writer of decent thrillers, but he is hardly anti-establishment.
Likewise, Blackman has enjoyed the support of renowned establishment yes-man former colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded of British forces in Afghanistan in the early stages of the occupation, before it all got hairy.
I agree with parts of his latest statements from jail. “I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight for my country in an unpopular war,” he says. All true, in my opinion. A pointless, failed, imperial war driven by hubris and arrogance, and conducted to the detriment of the Afghan people, I’d add.
But there is something more at play here, and there is a hint of truth in his complaint, a truth which is being badly abused in an attempt to get the 41-year old soldier released.
They are playing on the idea of the British soldier as a victim, and while Blackman does not qualify in this case, he and many other veterans do in any number of ways.
The idea has weight. British soldiers have always been, and continue to be, stitched up by those who manage them.
The briefest glance through the history books will tell you that the many of the ‘heroes’ of battles as diverse as Waterloo, Rorke’s Drift and the Somme came home to poverty, hardship, mental breakdown and destitution.
This betrayal is expressed today through the thousands of homeless veterans on our streets and a recent spike of veteran suicides. That military men and women are betrayed by their masters is not in question, but as far as Alexander Blackman’s murder conviction goes he is no victim. He is a perpetrator.
A campaign has been launched to review the case of a Royal Marine jailed for life for killing a Taliban insurgent.
Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of murdering the injured captive in Afghanistan but his supporters say it was manslaughter.
Author and campaigner Frederick Forsyth said the court martial that convicted Blackman “stank from top to bottom”.
Joshua Rozenberg, who presents Radio 4’s Law in Action, said it would be “an uphill struggle” to reopen the case.
A new legal team – led by Jonathan Goldberg QC – is seeking a review, arguing that he should have been convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Blackman, of Taunton, Somerset, was convicted in 2013 and lost an appeal in May last year, but his 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years.
Blackman’s wife Claire told the Daily Mail: “The fact that he is now serving a life sentence for killing a dying Taliban insurgent is just wrong, this was war.
“Had the roles been reversed that man would have tortured my husband before killing him.
“We will not give up the fight to bring Al home.”
Mr Forsyth, who is leading the campaign, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the evidence that Blackman was “nearly feral with exhaustion” was not produced at court.
“There is a very, very clear case that you can get a fighting man so tired, so consumed by battle fatigue and combat stress that he is hardly even thinking straight and there is provision in British law for that,” he said.
He claimed that at the end of Blackman’s trial, all seven members of the jury “put their caps on and saluted him.”
“Honourable men do not salute a perjurer and a murderer”, he said.
Mr Forsyth said the verdict had been a five to two majority, but Mr Rozenberg said the argument that it was unfair to have a majority verdict was dismissed so “it would be hard to overturn that”.
Campaigners hope the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates suspected miscarriages of justice, will look at Blackman’s case.
Commission spokeswoman Sally Berlin said the organisation has yet to receive an application from the campaigners or legal team, but if one is submitted it will consider the case.
Mr Goldberg said there are three routes to a manslaughter verdict including loss of control, unlawful act manslaughter and diminished responsibility and he said all could be argued.
Mr Goldberg said Blackman suffered from battlefield stress syndrome and this was not presented to “any of the previous courts” as grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter “as we think it should have been”.
He said if Blackman had been convicted of manslaughter he may not have been jailed.
The killing, on 15 September 2011, took place after a patrol base in Helmand province came under fire from two insurgents.
One of the attackers was seriously injured by gunfire from an Apache helicopter sent to provide air support and the marines found him in a field.
Footage from another marine’s helmet-mounted camera showed Blackman shooting the Afghan prisoner in the chest with a 9mm pistol.
Blackman told him: “There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil.”
The court martial board in Bulford, Wiltshire, found Blackman guilty of murdering the insurgent. Two other marines were acquitted.
It was the first time a member of the British armed forces had faced a murder charge in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan, which began in 2001.
Blackman was also “dismissed with disgrace” from the Royal Marines. He had served with distinction for 15 years, including tours of Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.
Blackman had denied murder, claiming he believed the victim was already dead and that he was taking his anger out on the corpse.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We respect the authority and decision of the court.”
The Mail claims crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from the original court martial and says it will reveal “extraordinary and compelling new evidence” in the “coming days”.
The paper reports that it has seen confidential papers which claim panel members who convicted Blackman were “deliberately kept in the dark”.
The paper claims the court martial was never given evidence of alleged operational failings by Blackman’s commanders, which meant his troop was “isolated, under-manned, under-resourced and under daily Taliban assault”.
All of this was “directly affecting his state of mind at the time of the shooting”, which led to Blackman not receiving a fair trial, it is claimed.
Blackman, 41, told the Mail: “I made a split-second mistake, but I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight a war for my country.
“At the end of my trial, the establishment lined up to portray me as evil, because it suited them… to show the world how politically correct we are.
“I have been made a scapegoat.”
Blackman’s case is due to be discussed in the House of Commons on 16 September.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.