A speech in honour of my dear friend, Jack Wigglesworth, on 12 October 2006 in Drapers’s Hall – I wound up becoming a World Trader because of this talk… Continue reading →

East Surrey Business Club

4 July 2006 – The House of Lords

Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen.  It is truly an honour to share with you the outstanding hospitality of that most kind Scottish Laird, Lord Lindsay.  Last year my wife and I spent most of the time dropping such casual gems as, “did we mention we saw Cream in concert earlier this year.”  For weeks now I’ve been subtly dropping lead bricks such as, “terribly sorry but I can’t join you on the 4^th of July as I’m busy that night giving a speech at the House of Lords”.   It is a great honour for an American to have the opportunity to talk in this humbling setting, even if it is “at the House of Lords” rather than “to the House of Lords”, but I found some reactions to the idea a little confusing.  Despite mentioning the tradition of picnics and fireworks while dropping the fact that I’d be speaking on Independence Day, all of my British friends kept referring to their special day on the 4^th of July as a huge bout of Thanksgiving.

Of course, I speak not of Independence Day the film, nor of England’s freedom from 13 burdensome colonies, but of America’s freedom, had it remained part of the United Kingdom, from today’s Scottish Rule.

But the biggest honour, and my greatest pleasure, is in thanking each and every member of the East Surrey Business Club and their guests for joining in this celebration of the special relationship between the UK and the USA on this most memorable day, Independence Day.  Britain and America do have a special relationship, well worth celebrating, but I wondered why me rather than some more distinguished speaker with a better accent, but I realised why after I spoke with Geoffrey Sanderson.  Geoffrey explained that East Surrey is blessed with some fine locations you use each year for events.  East Surrey holds Hever Castle of Anne Boleyn, King Henry the Eighth and Astor family fame; Chartwell, home of Winston Churchill.  But it was the Gresham connection that mattered.  Titsey Place is closely linked to Sir Thomas Gresham, who in 1579 founded Gresham College where I have the privilege of being Mercers’ School Memorial Professor of Commerce.  Then, at the other end of the scale using Gresham family symbol of the insect Sir Thomas Gresham himself made famous, and still found throughout the City of London, The Grasshopper Inn, home to the largest singles night in the southeast on a Friday!

In order to stay on message and explore the special relationship, I’d like to start with a wonderful story that the great gag writer, Barry Cryer, tells about that fantastic, native comedian Tommy Cooper.  When Tommy Cooper was on military service with the Horse Guards he was assigned palace sentry duty but fell asleep standing inside his sentry box.  While in the middle of this court-martial-able offence, he half opened one eye to see his Commanding Officer and the Regimental Sergeant Major fast approaching to discipline him.  Closing his eye again he sought a single, killing word that might free him from this predicament.  He shook himself, drew to his full height, opened both eyes and then said the one word that could save him –  “AMEN.”

So let us find that one killing word for the special relationship.  I thought, particularly given tonight’s venue, we could talk about how special our politicians are, but as I moved into the modern era I was left contrasting Churchill or Thatcher with Carter, Ford, Clinton or Bush.  So I had to move on to other topics in my search for that one special word, or as Dan Quayle pointed out – “One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is ‘to be prepared’.”

So what is the special relationship?  Everything important I’ve learned in life I’ve learned from one book, my cheque book.  And the special relationship has cost me, having lived in the UK for over a quarter of a century.  But digging through my cheque stubs failed to produce much insight, except that things in London always cost more so, as an ersatz academic, I thought I should conduct some further research, and picked up a copy of a booklet from 1942, “Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain”, published by the US War Department and issued to American GIs going to Britain in preparation for the invasion of occupied Europe.  It warned about the meanings of “bum”, explained British frugality, praised British toughness and distinguished reserve from unfriendliness.

The booklet referred frequently to “Tommies”, so I wondered if we could start looking for that special word for the special relationship in slang.  Everyone has a particular, endearing little phrase they use with those whom they love, “sweetheart”, “darling”, “dearest”.  This is perhaps best seen at breakfast.  An Australian, an American and an Englishman are breakfasting with their wives.  The Australian asks, “pass the shugah, Sugar.”  The American requests, “pass the honey, Honey”.  The Englishman says, “pass the tea, Bag”.

For those foreigners whom we love, both Americans and Britons have special, delightful, diminutive terms of endearment that can get people all worked up, such as “frog”, “kraut” or “dago”.  But for each other?  “Limey” and “Yank”.  Limey is presumed to refer to the use by British sailors of lime juice as an antiscorbutic.  However, it is a bit difficult to get worked up about someone trying to put you down about your use of preventative medicine.  The origin of Yankee is more obscure, possibly coming from the Dutch referring to New England settlers as “Jan Kees” or commoners.  To the Dutch, New England’s English settlers’ strangest characteristic was constantly cooking pies, leading to a humorous aphorism by E B White:

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

As you can see, by White’s definition virtually no one in the USA is a true Yankee, so no one takes offence.  By way of contrast, living in the East End I can manage to take offence at “Yank”-”septic tank”-”seppo”.  I far prefer the Chinese word for American, mei-guo-ren, “people of the beautiful land”.  Sadly, insults have moved even further forward these days.  The popular word to describe American on the internet sounds like the way a Westerner describes himself over here, “merrekin”.  However, kids these days know what they’re doing so “merkin” is spelled “m-e-r-k-i-n”, and the internet kids know exactly what that means, a pubic wig.  So perhaps we should look elsewhere for our special descriptive word of the special relationship.

Is it that Greek word, oxymoron?  There are many British oxymora:

British plumbing

British punctuality

British sexuality

There are at least as many American oxymora:

American culture

American irony

Republican party

American English

We even share oxymora – British and American intelligence.  But I don’t think that “special relationship” is oxymoronic.  It’s a real concept, and not just around tax time or battle time.

Perhaps the word is trustworthy.  But then I remember that both countries have helped found the professions based on mistrust, chartered surveying, chartered accountancy and chartered actuaries, just to get started.  If we really want to add insult to injury, then we have to remember that while the common law legal system may be one of Britain’s finest exports, it keeps lawyers in holiday homes.  The French always remarked that the sun never set on Perfidious Albion’s empire because God didn’t trust Brits in the dark.  I suspect they have a similar expression for American pseudo-imperialism today.

Perhaps the word is “spiritual”.  Surveys show that one of the things about America that increasingly scares Europeans is the contrast between America’s secularity in law and overt evangelism in practice.  Britain too is covered with religious fervour from Orkney’s stone circles to Stonehenge to Ely Cathedral, but then I remember why God gave such a non-religious people as the English cricket – so they could develop a sense of eternity.

With a German wife I’m constantly reminded “don’t mention the war”, but perhaps that special word is “war”.  Two World Wars have been fought shoulder-to-shoulder and many conflicts shared from the Falklands to the Gulf to Afghanistan to Iraq.  There have also been a few confusing episodes from the War of Northern Aggression to China to Suez.  Both have much to be proud of, and a few incidents to regret.  We jointly celebrate the selfless efforts of our brave parents and grandparents, and, quite rightly, renew our gratitude for their sacrifices.  Less remarked upon is that the British and the Americans have fought four wars against each other – the War of Independence which we’re kind of celebrating tonight, the War of 1812, and for those historians amongst you, the Northeast Aroostock War of 1838 and the Northwest Pig War of 1859.  Fortunately, in two of the four wars there were no casualities, unless you count the pig.

If I couldn’t mention the war, perhaps I could advance through technology, Vorsprung durch Technik as they say in the car trade.  Britain and America share quite a bit of common culture in inventiveness and science, from Bacon through to those other Gresham professors Wren and Hooke to Faraday to Edison to the Wright Brothers to Crick and Watson, or Watson and Crick as you say here.  Briton’s respect pluckiness and doughtiness, similarly Americans admire “can do” attitudes and Yankee ingenuity.  However, having spent several years working in the UK Ministry of Defence’s research laboratories, I don’t want to get dragged again into “who invented it first” wars, though some of you may find it interesting to know that Farnborough’s Royal Aircraft Establishment was founded by the American showman, William Cody.

I wondered if national mottos might help, but there’s quite a difference between “In God We Trust” and “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense”.  One is fairly obvious while the other seems to say “shame upon him who thinks evil of it” – or I’ll thump ‘em.   I wondered about government.  There are many shared government characteristics.  My firm, Z/Yen Limited, is a special think tank and research organisation in the City of London where we work on a variety of topics with investment banks, technology firms and NGOs, including things such as trying to develop a Museum and Walk of Commerce & Finance for the public.  Because of our involvement in the City, I had the delight of being the Chairman of the Broad Street Ward Club a couple of years ago, a traditional post since at least 1278 and part of the oldest unbroken record of democracy, the City of London’s, closely followed by Parliament itself.  I think of the Magna Carta and the Constitution, but the differences are very real too.  One constitution is written, one impenetrable; one country has a monarch; one country is highly decentralised.  Sometimes the differences are greater than the commonality.

Yet both countries are grounded on the big theme of Independence Day, Freedom.  Mark Twain, in remarks to London’s American Society 99 years ago, said:

Let us be able to say to old England, this great-hearted, venerable [nation], you gave us our Fourths of July, that we love and that we honor and revere; you gave us the Declaration of Independence, which is the charter of our rights; you, the venerable Mother of Liberties, the Champion and Protector of Anglo-Saxon Freedom – you gave us these things, and we do most honestly thank you for them.

Given Twain’s reverence, I would like to read a short section from the unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America in Congress on July 4th 1776, some 230 years ago:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …

OK, the Declaration of Independence loses rhetorical impact from this point on, going on to whinge quite a bit about George III’s taxation and unreasonableness, but there is an interesting point here, and that is how different cultures put different meanings into “freedom”, while some cultures share very similar meanings.  This declaration was written from one people to another.  Note this again, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.  It is a letter that could only be written from one people to another who shared so much in common.  Peoples who believed in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, personal responsibility, habeus corpus and fair trials.

On the Continent, we have the concept of “freedom to”.  In Britain and the USA, we have the concept of “freedom from”.  Or expressed another way, we tend to follow the libertarian maxim of “whatever is not explicitly forbidden is permitted”, while on the Continent, and in many other countries, people tend to follow the authoritarian maxim of “whatever is not explicitly permitted is forbidden”.

Deeply held freedoms should lead not to shrill repetition that hollows out meaning, rather freedoms should lead to tolerance.  Tolerance of others, respect for their opinions, their rights and their values.  Even the summer torrent of US tourists, clad in plaid should be chatted to, their opinions respected, and then fixed.

The Instructions for American Servicemen praised British fair play and tolerance.  The British are a tolerant people – and for that we love them.  They are tolerant to all foreigners, having us in their land, allowing us to make fun of them and to share their sense of humour and fair play.  It may not look it in this 21^st century, but Americans have their own version of tolerance.  Past the embarrassment of US Customs, I think most visitors to America would agree that Americans are tolerant.  The problem today is that Americans are losing their reputation for tolerance due to their own actions.  Sure, the British Constitution may be unwritten, but an unwritten constitution that provides freedom and tolerance is worth infinitely more than a written constitution speaking volumes but offering only lip service.  America is losing its reputation for tolerance not just in geo-politics, but also in business.  Calvin Coolidge, the 30^th President of the USA, popularised the idea that “the business of America is business”.  Extra-territorial actions on corporate activities; global impositions such as Sarbanes-Oxley; absurd anti-money-laundering regimes that ignore the data they request; or unilateral anti-dumping confusion worthy of Peter Mandelson himself – America is in danger of losing its reputation for fair play in business.  More and more the business of America is seen to be regulation, in America’s favour.

Closely related to tolerance is a pragmatic view of the world.  America seems to be in danger of losing its pragmatism and its tolerance.  It is at just this point that I want to ask for your assistance.  A special relationship is a bit like a marriage, only a spouse can tell a husband (sic) certain things.  I think we need to have more constructive British criticism of America’s changing business practices.  We should rebel against “taxation without representation”.  We business people need to be vigilant against intolerance.  Our cry for independence should be, “the only thing of which we are intolerant is intolerance itself”!

Sure, in the short-term we can all take advantage of American firms’ excessive legality, their self-centred views of the world or their callous imposition of their culture, but ultimately we will all lose.  In some ways, only Britons can tell Americans when they have gone too far and insulted someone, almost always unwittingly, or gone too far, mostly through ignorance, and impeded their own objectives.  We need to encourage American businesses to compete globally.  As Mark Twain also remarked:

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness … Broad, wholesome, charitable views of people and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth in all one’s lifetime.

We must press the cases loudly and clearly with US businesses for fair trade, sensitivity to other cultures and respect for the environment.  We must also press the case for America here, where one in five young Britons dislikes America ab initio.  We must deepen, strengthen and complicate our Anglo-American clan.  If we, Americans abroad and the Britons of the special relationship, can get American businesses improve their respect for other cultures, other governments, other legal systems and other taxation systems, then as Dan Quayle noticed, “the future will be better tomorrow”.

Churchill said that a fanatic is someone who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.  I won’t change my mind, but I can close the subject.

Perhaps I was wrong to focus on Tommy Cooper and a single word – the special relationship is really founded on a mutual respect for two words – freedom and tolerance.

Or as Tommy Cooper might say, a sincere “AMEN”.

Honoured companions, it gives me great pleasure to ask you to be upstanding and drink a toast to – our Special Relationship.

Thank you.

“Prickly Don’t Mean Ornery”

Our family’s 2005 attempt to celebrate our father’s birthday led to the organisation of a Curmudgeon Conference, backed up by solid market research and pricked by a porcupine …

1)      Do you consider yourself a curmudgeon?  Please explain why or why not.

If you want simple answers, go ask simpletons.  I must say that I do object to the motto – “Prickly Don’t Mean Ornery” – yes it does!  At the end of the day, it all has to start somewhere.  Besides, who’s asking?  And what business is it of yours?

As for mankind’s excesses, well starting with anti-terrorism and the dot.bomb bubble, it’s going to take too long to explain why I see it as one of our prime goals on earth to puncture, preferably with a sharpened umbrella tip, all of our fellow humans’ pretensions, or fellow humans for that matter.

As another old proverb avers, “A man with one watch knows the time.  A man with two watches is never sure.”  I see myself as that watch.  My modest task is to make curmudgeonliness the dominant body of thought on the planet.  I have assumed this task with the humility expected of me.

2)      Do you consider yourself a cynic? If you answer differently from #1 – why is that?

Certainly not.  A reasonable Webster definition is – a fault-finding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest – clearly does not apply.  For instance, I believe that human conduct is also motivated by stupidity, lust, misapprehensions, delusions and a small smattering of illicit substances.  There is only one law, the law of unintended consequences.  In the spirit of Diogenes, I would prefer to be regarded as a kynic.  To quote at length from a learned article:

“Obviously the lacuna here is the absence of guidance on how to generate alternatives.” [Checkland in Open Systems Group, 1972, page 292] “Traditional scientific method, unfortunately, has never quite gotten around to saying exactly where to pick up more of these hypotheses.” [Pirsig, 1974, page 251] At a broader level, cynical reasoning comes in for much criticism directed at the promotion of change through contention.  “In its cheekiness [ancient kynicism] lies a method worthy of discovery.  This first really ‘dialectical materialism’, which was also an existentialism, is viewed unjustly . . . that . . . respectable thinking does not know how to deal with.” [Sloterdijk, 1988, page 101].  Overall, the difficulty is that to have a system is to have constraints, but constraints restrict change.”

The article continues much later:

“One point of view worth exploring is the “kynical”.  The kynic is a person who holds that by being what you are, you achieve what you seek.  To the kynic the act of analysis, a cynical task, is destructive whereas the act of existence is creative.  The kynical/cynical dichotomy is an old one.  While the kynic rebels against analysis, the cynic is committed to analytical approaches.  One of the most famous, long-running kynical/cynical disputations was between Diogenes and Plato.  The kynical view is not confined to Western philosophy, in fact it might even be said to be more Eastern than Western.  The precepts of many Eastern philosophies recognise the limitations of analytical thought and the need to compensate for the destructive effects of the analytical by seeking holistic views.  These holistic views, it is frequently maintained, cannot be taught.  The apotheosis of this view can be seen in philosophies such as Zen, where enlightenment is sought by denying analytical thought.  A holistic view is achieved by transcending the limits of analytical thought processes, e.g. by contemplating and realising the implications of a question such as “what is the sound of one hand clapping” or a paradox which forces one to go beyond verbal reasoning such as “to win is to lose” [Humphreys, 1984, page 15].  A flash of insight purportedly leads to enlightenment, as illustrated in many Zen stories where analytical techniques beloved by a student are repeatedly frustrated by his or her mentor to the point that the student achieves enlightenment.  These are not solely Eastern ideas.  There are echoes of kynicism among current Western philosophy, e.g. “our supreme insights must – and should! – sound like follies, in certain cases like crimes…” [Nietzsche, 1990].

The kynical view is, on its own terms, perhaps best-examined by example rather than analysis.  In attempting to analyse and classify species, Plato maintained that man was a featherless bi-ped, thus distinguishing man from the birds and from mammals who walked on four legs.  Diogenes, the kynic, refuted the classification with a plucked chicken…”

As I never fail to point out, “somebody else always said it first, better and more succinctly” (Somebody 1958).

3)      Is the curmudgeon a reformer or a self centered egotist?

Well naturally the curmudgeon is a reformer.  In fact, the high tragedy of curmudgeonliness is that the reformer continues to work realising the futility of the task, but drawn to it by an inner nobility.  A bit like Sisyphus with morals.  In fact it has led to my profession – I’m a consultant; I can’t see anything I don’t want to change.  A lifetime in business has taught me that people are reluctant to admit that their original choices and opinions might be in error – of that I’m sure.  As I like to point out – it’s easy to confuse simple and easy – it’s simple to confuse easy and simple.

4)      What has been bugging you recently as you go through your daily routine?

Why is it that you can put shaving cream safely on your toothbrush in the morning, but not safely put toothpaste on your razor?  I’m also bugged by the current craze of stalkers.  Originally, stalkers were praised for their ability to sneak up on game.  So if the press goes on about some extreme stalker, you have to ask, “if they’re so good, why can people see them?”.  I’ve got a great, beautiful stalker who’s so good I’ve never seen her – Liv Tyler.  Finally, I can’t get over these annoying assertiveness training programmes.  All these guys come back saying “I’m an Alpha male.”  They ought to ask for their money back ’cause they’re not saying “I’m THE Alpha male.”

5)      What annoys you about people in the supermarket?

I wouldn’t ride Sunday’s pig to Saturday’s market to buy the applesauce.  If I can spend a euphemism – low hanging fruits is a phrase I find over-ripe in describing shoppers, store assistants, cashiers, bag boys, managers, parking lot attendants…   As the Greek intellectuals pointed out, there are three stages of man, the curmudgeon, the philosopher and the sophisticate.  These are exemplified by the three key statements:

• whine me?
• why me?
• wine, why not?

There are three types of people in the world – those who need help, those who don’t, and those who believe in triage.  Sometimes I think that everything’s fine.  Sometimes I think that the supermarket would be improved with an Uzi.  Who is to say?  Remember I told you so.  Also, remember to forget about this.

6)      What product have you bought (at any time) that you will never buy again, and what is the reason?

A piece of the Greenland icecap.  Obviously for ethical reasons.  Curmudgeon = WYNGER = why you never get everything required when you buy things.

7)      What do you think of Christmas?

Still waiting for the Second Coming, along with the rest of us.  If Christ had been Noah, cockroaches would rule the earth.  Bet three of them come along at once!  Christmas could get really gruesome if it turns out God is an atheist.  Anyway, if you want to stop Christmas, just remove the batteries.

8)      What do you think of children?

W C Fields was a Somebody [see answer to question 2].  Michael Jackson was even more of a somebody.  While I recognise that “it all begins with babies” (from a conversation I had a couple of years ago on nursery demographics), I think that children take the joys of parenthood and turn them into overheads.  One of the things I love about nanny-cams is that they beat them too.

How about parents.  My father and mother are now over 70 and refuse to act their age.  They travel around seemingly imagining they’re in their 40’s.  How preposterous!  They’re at least 50 years older than me!

9)      Do you like living in your town? How would you describe your town? What is your assessment of the character of the people who live in your town?

Some things you can appreciate now; others you have to wait till they appreciate.  Basically, can’t afford to move.  London?  As they say, when a man tires of London, he’s tired of looking for a parking space.  According to the School of Instant Appreciation – “nothing created by man can’t be appreciated in 10 minutes.”  Take it while it lasts.  There was a news article saying the Greenland ice cap might entirely melt by the end of the century (couldn’t have used that headline in 1999!).  This place will have a great view when it’s all built up.

With the dearth of real crime we now have a permanent morgue on our television with cop shows of all forms.  I’m beginning to hope CSI find my body in front of the TV so my wife can serve her time.  I intend to get a CSI “living will” card – “Don’t touch this body.  Let a professional do their work.”

10)  Tell us about a hypochondriac tendency that you have?

Mark Twain’s contrarian, anti-portfolio saying (from Pudd’nhead Wilson):  “Behold, the fool saith, ‘Put not all thine eggs in the one basket’ – which is but a manner of saying, ‘Scatter your money and your attention’, but the wise man saith, ‘Put all your eggs in the one basket and – watch that basket.’”  Naturally, that’s how I feel about my health and I would encourage you to feel likewise, or else.

There is an old Groucho Marx joke that Woody Allen recycled to explain the inevitability of amorous relationships.  A guy goes to a psychiatrist:  “Doctor, Doctor, my brother thinks he’s a chicken. Can you help?”  “Why don’t you stop him?”  “We need the eggs!”

Obviously, any profession that is incapable of running a hen coop is rather low in my pecking order.  My father always said to use the right tool for the job.  I just wonder why that tool was always a hammer.  Besides, I have no empathy with empathy.

[End of Questionnaire – one joke short of a punchline]

It’s at times like these I get a feeling of deja nu.  I’ve seen a questionnaire like this before and I’m answering it in the nude.

Selected Translation Tidbits

from Le Royal Tour Restaurant menu by the Eiffel Tower, 23 Avenue La Bourdonnais, 75007 Paris, France, +33 1 45 51 38 04

All entries are absolutely true – heck you couldn’t make this up – i.e. the first line is the French, the second was the restaurant’s translation, the third in brackets is a helpful, cultural interpretation (all right, perhaps they were my comments).

Tartare d’avocat et crevettes sauce cocktail

     Lawyer Tartar, shrimps sauce cocktail

          (kinda makes you want to turn cannibal)

Salade Estivale (Mesclun de salade, saumon fumé, avocat, pâtes, vinaigre de xérès

Salad, smoked salmon, lawyer, warp ends, vinegar of Jerez

(bit ends? warp speed? it’s lawyers Jim, but not as we know ‘em)

Salade frisée aux lardons et oeuf poche

Salad with lardoons and poached egg

(we don’ take to lardoons round these here parts…)

Croustillant au chèvre chaud sur lit de salade

Crusty with the goat heat on salad

(well, without any bucks, what do you expect?)

L’entrecôte du boucher

Sirloin fashin, garnish and sauce with the choice

(if Billy’s off the menu, this must be in fash)

Côte de boeuf au four pour deux personnes

     Coast of boeuf for two people

          (no gastronomic girly-men these Frenchies; an entire coast)

Trio de côtes d’agneau grillés garniture au choix

Roasted coasts of lamb garnish to the choice

(continental drift is verging on extinction)

Escalope de dinde à la normande, spaghetti

Poultry scallop with spaghetti

(and you thought genetically-modified was safe?)

And our all-time favourite:

Viande de boeuf fraîchement hachée avec machine réfrigérée à la commande

Beef codly chopped has the order with cooled machine

(a chilling view of the future as slave human chefs wield frozen fish carcasses to splinter beef under the domination of cryogenically-refrigerated computers)

Professor Michael Mainelli on location in Paris … taking diplomacy lessons from Jed Babbin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense from the first Bush administration on 30 January 2003 – “… you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion.  You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind.”