Happy Gluttonous Easter

Happy Easter. In honor of Easter, let's take a look at some Easter candy ingestion statistics from the UK and try to figure out what in the world is going on over there.

According to an article by those fine folks across the pond over there at The Telegraph, a mystery shopping company (whatever the heck that is) took a poll and found out that "Children will indulge in an average of more than two-and-a-half kilograms of chocolate over the Easter holiday." Wait. Two and a half kilograms?!

A kilogram is around 2.2 pounds. Thus, 2.5 kilograms would be the equivalent of 5.5 POUNDS. Of chocolate? Eaten?! By children?! (I'm pretty sure that somewhere in here there's some sort of a joke about the stereotypical Brit with bad teeth, I'm just a little unsure of how to phrase it, so that's going to have to do.)

The article goes on to state that "...a typical 200g Easter egg has 990 calories and 50 grams of fat, with youngsters aged 10-14 eating an average of 13, many first thing on Easter Sunday." Wait a minute here. A 200 gram chocolate Easter egg is "typical" for those folks? How many grams in a pound? (Let's see....four quarts in a gallon...two cups in a pint...takes one to know one....what's good for the goose....what was the question?) 1 pound = 453.59237 grams. Thus, 200 grams would be a little bit less than half a pound. That's TYPICAL?!?!

This cannot possibly be correct, can it? And these kids are eating thirteen of those eggs? Well, of course they are, considering that they're eating 5-1/2 pounds of chocolate. That would add up to thirteen of them. How can that be? Why are the Brits buying their kids so much freaking chocolate for Easter? Are they trying to find one thing that they can out-do the US at? How about they pick something else? Something not quite so gluttonous? Or something that could possibly be attained. Trying to out-do the United States at overeating would be the equivalent of trying to out-do Tiger Woods at cocktail waitress banging. It's (sadly) just not going to happen. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

The article says that "...the 15 to 19 age group weighs in with 11 (eggs) each" but "the 40 to 59-year-olds and over-75s have the lowest consumption, with an average of just one." So, these folks are buying pounds and pounds of chocolate for their kids, but limiting their own egg consumption to just one? That seems...counterintuitive at best. They give their kids tons of chocolate eggs, but consume the absolute minimum themselves. I'm still noodling through why this would be. Soft, soft headed individuals is what I'm guessing. Whatever the answer, it certainly isn't rooted in anything rational or justifiable.

We also learn that "Seven out of 10 parents have adopted the American tradition of holding a 'hunt the Easter egg' event for their children." First of all, it's an Easter egg hunt. If you're going to adopt it, at least call it by its given name. Second, we're absolutely not hunting for half pound chocolate eggs. The outdoor Easter egg hunts that I participated in as a small child involved real eggs! They were hard-boiled (because it would have just been weird otherwise) and dyed different colors, but they were real eggs. In addition to the real eggs, there were also those colored plastic eggs that you could put like ONE tiny chocolate egg inside of. Again, if you're going to adopt something, try to keep our wacky ways in tact, would you? Thanks.

I don't know what to think about all of this (other than next year right before Easter, it might be time for me to invest some money by buying some sort of confectionery stocks or glucose meters). Five an a half pounds of chocolate in one day. Even when I was a little kid and that would have sounded like an appealing event to partake in, I highly doubt I could have done it without some sort of reversal of fortune occurring before the end of the day.

Sphere: Related Content

Private Public Safety Gone Too Far

I don't use the word stupid very often. I have no problem with other words which indicate stupidity, such as moron (my personal favorite) and, on occasion, idiotic. I'm also a big fan of the word ridiculous. But for some reason, stupid just seems a little harsh to me. That being said, I have just read what might be one of the stupidest ideas that has ever popped into the head of a human being (or animal, for that matter, and animals have been known to eat their own feces, so that should give you a measuring stick for how stupid I think this really it).

Let's hop on over across the pond to Macclesfield, Cheshire (that's in England). It is there that the fine folks at Mail Online bring us the tale of "...an initiative called Operation Golden which aims to slash burglary rates." Now, I don't know what the burglary rates are in Macclesfield, but I highly doubt that they're high enough to implement something this stupid. And that's because it's very difficult to justify stupidity to begin with.

Here's how Operation Golden works: Officers have begun testing windows and doors at night as part of a campaign to increase home security." Hmm. Now, I admit I find that concept odd. I understand wanting to increase home security. That seems like a reasonable idea. But I don't know how the window and door testing is going to help. What's that? There's more? Oh, yeah. There is.

"If they find one open, they are under orders to knock on the door and drag sleepy residents from their beds and lecture them." Um, what now?

I am admittedly completely unfamiliar with the gun laws in England. I know y'all are a bit knife-y over there, but I don't know how shoot-y things get. See, over here in the US, there are quite a few of us who exercise our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And if my door gets knocked on in the middle of the night or I hear someone messing with my windows in the middle of the night, I'm going to exercise that 2nd Amendment right faster than anyone is going to be able to explain to me that they're the police and they're just doing a little safety check.

According to a one Inspector Gareth Woods (he's the chap who is in charge of this lunacy), "He admitted that some residents will not be happy about the wake-up call, but said: 'If we're told to get lost then that's a risk we take." It's not so much the getting told off that would be the risk I'd be worried about if I were you folks. It's the getting shot part that would concern me.

"Police say their actions are necessary as almost 40 per cent of all burglars gain access through an unsecured window or door." I can imagine. But I'm here to tell you that although only 40 percent of burglars gain their access through the windows or doors that are unsecured, 100 percent of that 40 percent would be shot at here at here at my walled off compound.

Here's my question (well, aside from the one about why anyone would think that this is a good idea): How is this not trespassing? If you're wandering about the perimeter of my home and you're trying to open my doors and trying to open my windows, how are you not trespassing? Is trespassing only something that exists in the United States? I don't think that it is. So how is this justified? Sadly, the article does not say. But it does say that "Most reasonable people will say thanks for letting them know and be grateful." Ummm, I don't think that they will. That, of course, is provided that they are, in fact, "reasonable people". Reasonable people are not going to be grateful that someone is sneaking around outside of their house and seeing if they can get in. No, if the doorbell is rang at 2 in the morning and it's a cop standing there who begins to lecture them on the safety of their own home, reasonable people are going to flip out! That's what reasonable people are going to do. It's the numb nuts who are going to thank these officers for attempting to break into their home. What is wrong with people?

While I can appreciate the whole wanting to educate the public on keeping their home safe, I'm thinking this goes a bit too far. After all, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you leave your home unlocked, it's reasonable to think that a burglar might try to get in and steal your stuff. A reasonable person (see the paragraph above) would realize this and would lock their home. If your home is unlocked and someone steals your stuff, hey, live and learn, I suppose.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? I'm thinking plenty. Plenty could go wrong. It's only a matter of time before an officer is shot or stabbed or whatever it is that you folks over there in England do to protect your family and your belongings from an uninvited and intrusive stranger in the middle of the night. It won't end well. It won't end well because it's stupid.

If you're reading this and you happen to live over there, please tell me what in the world is going on. I'm so confused that something so idiotic would ever be implemented that I feel as if I must be missing part of the story. I'm terrified that I'm not, but I'm hoping that I am.

Sphere: Related Content

Extracurricular Activites of a UK Mayor

What in the world is wrong with some of you people? Seriously. It's a serious question. What is wrong with you? There is clearly something wrong with some of you, otherwise y'all wouldn't be pulling some of the stunts that you're pulling. I mean, I understand the need to get laid. (Believe me, I understand!) But I don't understand what you guys don't understand about going out and getting a hooker or a whore or something to accomplish that. And the part that I don't understand is why you don't do it if your other alternative to getting yourself off is to sneak into people's homes and relieve your sexual tensions on their undergarments. But that's only when you're not busy fulfilling your duties as mayor. Wait. As what now?

Correct. As mayor. It would seem that over there across the pond in Lancashire (that's in North West England) and according to the Lancashire Telegraph, "The mayor of a Lancashire village" was caught "sneaking into bedrooms to steal and violate women’s underwear". Really? As mayor? I hear of political sex scandals in this country every other day at least. Granted, Mayor isn't exactly Governor or Senator or anything like that, but I'm sure that there's still some scandal that's out there to be had that doesn't involve all of the stealing and certainly doesn't involve all of the violating. I'm sure of it.

But this guy, apparently, was not. Accoding to the article in the Lancashire Telegraph, "Church-going Ian Stafford, 59, was a highly respected member of the community and Mayor of Preesall, near Fleetwood, before his “bluntly revolting” behaviour was uncovered". I see. Was it really necessary to put in there that he was "church going"? I don't think that it was. But if it was, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to make people hate him more or less? Because it really makes me hate him more. Much more. Pig. But I digress. What does this sort of individual look like, you may be wondering? He looks exactly like you're think he looks. Behold!

Seriously. Tell me that if you were just shown that picture and you knew nothing of that man's history and you were given a choice of whether he was a mayor, a handyman or an ejaculating underwear thief, which one would you choose? The EUT, of course you would!

But perhaps being mayor over there in Lancashire doesn't carry the same clout or, at the very least, the same paycheck that it does over here in the US because Stafford was described as "A part-time handyman and gardener" and "had been employed for years by some of his victims who trusted him with keys to their homes." See, I just can't picture a mayor in the States as being someone's gardener. I picture pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom (the gayest looking straight man I have ever seen), the mayor of San Francisco and I can't see him doing his own gardening, let alone someone else's. Thank God that I also can't picture him doing unspeakable acts in other women's underwear drawers, either.

The pervert (I don't have to use "alleged" because he was convicted) was caught in his own insidious acts when one of the homeowners who had been violated "became suspicious" (oh, do you think?!) and set up hidden cameras. That was when Pervert Stafford was observed to be "in the bedroom naked from the waste(sp) down acting out his fantasy". Eww. Eww. And EWWW!!!

The homeowner (likely after multiple vomiting sessions) then took the evidence (which contained 14 minutes of this guy doing his thing) to the police. When they searched Pervy McJacksalot's home "...officers found stolen underwear which were marked with the women’s names on them." Of course. Because he wouldn't want to get them confused or mixed up or anything. No, that would be weird. Whatever. Freak.

I think that my favorite part of this account is where the article describe that "After hobbling into court using a walking stick, past his victims in the public gallery, his jaw dropped as he was sent down by Judge Heather Lloyd, who told him his actions were “bluntly revolting”. Oh, spare me. A walking stick?! (That's cutesy English talk for "a cane", I have the feeling.) Did the pervert have his walking stick (not to be confused with "whacking his stick") with him when he was sneaking into women's bedrooms and getting friendly with their undergarments? I'm not thinking that he did! If only judges in the US would tell people like this that they and their actions are both "bluntly revolting". That's pretty awesome.

The judge further told the sicko "To masturbate into a woman’s underwear and place it back in the drawer, repeatedly, as seen in the DVD, as you have done in other homes is bluntly revolting and the impact on your victims is high.” Why yes! Yes, it is! It is in all cases! It's bluntly revolting with an extremely high impact! Two years in jail is what this guy got? Good! I hope that he experiences some of this bluntly revolting behavior from some of his fellow inmates whilst he's serving away his time.

Sphere: Related Content

Super Scooby Snack

Once again, we have the "creation" of a ridiculous food item. Fortunately, this time the item isn't vying for a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. The only food items that should be worthy of a Guinness certified World Record are those that are grown. Not those that are baked, not those that are put together, not those which would set a record that could easily be bested by simply adding an ingredient, none of those should qualify. Under my rules, there would be a World Record available for the World's Largest Pumpkin, but there would not be a World Record available for the World's Largest Pumpkin Pie. What's to stop someone from making a bigger pumpkin pie the next day? Not much, all they'd need is a bigger pie plate. You shouldn't be able to snag a world record simply by going shopping.

Even better is that his edible atrocity comes from England. It's like their little way of saying, "Suck it, United States! We can have coronary artery disease just as much as y'all do." (Though I will admit that I highly doubt the Brits have ever said "y'all".) I'm just glad that we won't have to hear from the US folks who always crawl out of their laboratories when news of some lard-laden treat becomes available, just to admonish those of us who eat anything other than dust and Chiclets.

According to the probably obese folks over there at Fox News, the folks across the pond at a take out restaurant aptly called the Jolly Fryer have created a burger seemingly inspired by one of the greatest eaters in all of cartoon history: Scooby Doo.

The "Super Scooby" is the creation of brothers (who are also co-owners of the Jolly Fryer) Spiros and Andreas Lomvardos and another gent who happens to be an employee, Karl Ford. As the story goes (and by "the story" I mean "the article over there at Fox News"), the three chaps were "...sitting at work on a dead quiet night" and "...saw an ad from a well-known burger chain." According to Spiros, they noticed "The burgers always look big in the ads — but they never look like that in real life." That's when "...we started discussing making our own big burger.”

Ford is apparently a man of little talk and lots of action as he went home that night, created his own behemoth concoction and took a photo of it. Behold, the Super Scooby!

Oh, sweet mother of God, what is that gloriousness? Hold onto your arteries. Here we go:

• 4 quarter-pound beef patties
• 12 onion rings
• 8 slices of bacon
• 8 slices of cheese
• 6 slices of tomato
• 2 sesame buns
• Barbecue sauce
• Lettuce
• And a good slathering of mayonnaise.

I love me a good slathering. And a good slathering of mayonnaise is all the better. Let's all hail the genius of a one Karl Ford. After the photo shoot, the Lomvardos posted the photo on one of the walls of the restaurant. They say that they weren't really intending to sell the creature. Oh, right. They were just bragging? They're a restaurant! You think people aren't going to want that?! Of course they are! And they did!

Spiros must have read about the softheads in the US who always complain about how unhealthy something like this is because he did say, "“Obviously we wouldn’t recommend for someone to eat this every day. It’s not to be taken too seriously. It’s something that we would encourage on a special occasion for someone who wants to challenge themselves. It’s just a little bit of fun, really.” Brav-o, sir! Brav-o! My favorite part of that statement was the "obviously" because that's what I always think when something like this burbles up to the surface (probably in a vat of hot oil) in the US and the nutritionist Nazis come out in full force saying that if we eat that every day, we'll be dead by next Tuesday. Yes, we know that. Now please pipe down and pass the ketchup.

Here's the thing that is genius about Karl's burger: All of the ingredients go well with each other and there's not a lot of extra stuff and (here's the real genius) if you go light on the sauce and the mayonnaise, it won't be that big of a mess and is honestly, totally edible! NO problem! Look, I don't even eat beef and I think it looks fabulous! Hey. Wait a minute. I'm supposed to be against this sort of stuff. What am I doing lauding this man?! This creation?!

Oh, whew! I think I found just the thing to get me back on my cynical and disapproving track. According to the article, "If your stomach is strong enough to finish the burger, which comes with a side of traditional British chips, you even get a free Diet Coke to wash it all down with." Um, what? A Diet Coke?! THAT is what you're offering patrons who can eat a burger that measures 6-inches tall, weighs more than 3 pounds and weighs in at 2,645 calories, not to mention God only knows how much fat, sodium and cholesterol?!?! A bloody Diet Coke?!?! What is wrong with you people?! No cheap T-shirt?! No crappy bumper sticker?! No computer generated certificate that says "I finished an entire Super Scooby and all I got was this lousy piece of paper"? A Diet Coke?!?!

Sphere: Related Content

I Can't Say What?

It's happened again. You'd think that by this point, we'd be past this sort of thing. But apparently we're not. Well, we are. They are not. And by 'they' I mean those who are self appointed members of the Politically Correct Word Police. 'Pinheads' would be another acceptable term.

It would seem that some folks over in the UK are extremely concerned about things that 'might' happen. Now, there are lots of things that 'might' happen. That does not mean anything as far as how likely they are to actually happen. For example, monkeys might fly out of my arse. That does not mean it's going to happen. But it might! (In case you're wondering, I'm guessing it would have to involve some sort of a mishap with some Sea Monkeys, but that's all I've got.)

One of the things that a bunch of "taxpayer funded organizations" are concerned that might happen is that some folks may be offended by words or terms or sayings that have the potential to offend. Now, I'm not real big on the notion of 'potential'. (Obviously!) And especially when it comes to banning speech due to the "potential" for "offense". From what I can tell, there are very few things that actually offend others. There are people who like to claim that they're offended, but they're really just being a pain in the ass under the guise of offense. That's why I'd like to recommend that before folks run off and start creating this mythical Utopian society that they have in mind, they really stop and think about what it is that they're suggesting happen.

As far as the words or terms that might be offensive, some examples of this, according to the Times Online, would be "The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day." Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?

They claim that "...certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”." The term "black day" is one of those words? Allegedly? Why, yees! And..."The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”. " Um, what now?

It can imply? Under what circumstances can it imply that something is smaller and "less important"? I find that almost laughable as in the United States, the term "ethnic minority" often connotates exactly the opposite of something "smaller and less important". But I digress. Back to the Word Police.

Terms believed to be offensive to those over at The National Gallery in London include “gentleman’s agreement” (potentially offensive to women) and “right-hand man” (again, potentially offensive to women). Those softheads suggest replacing the potentially offensive terms (that may not have offended anyone ever since the beginning of time) with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” for the former and “second in command” being deemed more suitable for the latter. :::: sigh ::::

For some reason the Word Police is extremely fixated on any word that might have any connection to any sort of slavery. For example, the Learning and Skills Council "...wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it." Right. Because that would be offensive to....who? Slaves? I don't think there are any slaves these days. If to "master ones brief" was to be offensive, it would have to denote that the person was making the brief itself do the work. Actually, it's the other way around. It's the anti-master is what it is! What about the game Master Mind? Are we supposed to change that to "Perfect Mind"? I don't think we are. I know I'm not!

div align="justify">Over at the South West Regional Development Agency, they are able to admit that the terms that are "potentially offensive" have nothing to do with the part that would be offensive (if anyone were actually offended by it, which I doubt they are). They say “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black." So what should we use in their place? Dark? The dark sheep of the family? Dark mark? (Oh, please. No politically correct rhyming or I might just have to hang myself.)

I almost went over the edge when I read that "Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic." ::: blink::: :::: blink :::: That is the perfect example of someone just out to be an ass. And doing a fine job of it as well, might I add.

Over there at AOL News in an article on the same subject, a one Anthony Horowitz tries to talk some sense into people by explaining, "...our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. We know what these phrases mean....Banning them is just unnecessary." Yes! It would be silly to replace them all! Who can argue with that?! Anyone?! Oh, crap. This chick can. And does.

A one Rosalie Maggio argues that she "...sees nothing wrong with finding alternatives to these troublesome phrases." And I agree with that. But I don't agree that the phrase "gentleman's agreement" is troublesome in the least bit! This woman is the author of something called 'The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage' and 'The Nonsexist Word Finder,' just in case you were wondering where she was coming from. Her identity is the Word Police! She says "A 'fireman' could be a guy on a train. 'Firefighter' tells you -- it's an action verb. ... It tells you what they do. A mail carrier carries mail. A firefighter fights fires." What now?

A fireman could be a guy on a train? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does it mean he's any less of a firefighter? Or is she talking about the guy on the train being literally on fire? Man, this chick must be a blast at parties! Are you kidding me?! But wait! She's not going to tell you what you should be saying. She claims that, "People can use whatever words they choose, but there's no reason to fall back on ones that carry "unintended baggage." Like what? Bellhop?

Ms. Maggio also mentioned that in the United States during the 1980s, folks "... argued over words such as "snowperson" and "personhole"." OK, stop. Stop. Stop. STOP!!! What. The. Hell?!?!

Personhole? WTF is a personhole? (If I was in charge of this, Ms. Maggio would be my definition of personhole. Nice job, personhole!) Seriously? Like...as a replacement for manhole?? You have got to be kidding. First of all, if I ever hear anyone use the term 'personhole', I might have to punch them. No, I will have to punch them. Second, I cannot think of one woman I have ever met in my entire life (and there have been several!) who would have been offended by the word manhole.

I feel the need to make a suggestion to all involved in the Word Policing of societies. I'm going to strongly suggest that you take up a hobby. Perhaps get yourself a pocketknife and learn to whittle. Buy a banjo and pluck out some of the classics. Anything. Anything to keep you from nitpicking the English language to death.

But here's the perfect example of just how stupid (yes, stupid) this whole thing is and how there is the potential for everyone to be offended by everything and you can't go around banning certain words for fear of offending one soft-headed moron. (Why can't they just toughen up is my question.)

A one Christopher Cerf recalled "...a Long Island feminist in the 1970s who tried to change her name from Ellen Donna Cooperman to Ellen Donna Cooperperson." (I'm assuming Ellen Donna Imadumbass was taken?) "...she's a better person for it. Except that she forgot that 'person' has the word 'son' in it." Bravo, sir. Bra-VO.

What other words can we get rid of because they might offend people? Let's not limit it to just gender, for cryin' out loud!

What about 'handsome'? Could be offensive to amputees.

What are we supposed to do about the 'best man'? Best person? I don't think so.

Therapist? Offensive to rapists?

Manslaughter? You folks really want to go with 'personslaughter'? I don't think you do. Besides that, it could be offensive to depressed people. Mans laughter? Ahhhh...see?

Calling someone "a chicken"? Offensive to poultry.

Oooh...Headmaster! Offensive to both slaves and people without heads!

Sightseeing? Offensive to blind people.

See how silly the whole thing is? Well, it's silly all right, but I'm about to make it sillier. One of the nitpicky language usage books that Ms. Maggio has authored is titled "How to Say It" and it does just that; instructs the reader of the most acceptable (according to her) ways of composing various types of letters (ie, acceptance, complaints, responses, etc.). She goes very far out of her way to include every sort of name possibly imaginable, presumably so that there is no ethnic stereotyping or gender stereotyping in the responses. But this woman takes it to the extreme. Behold! Extreme political correctness. Or something.

Mr. and Mrs. Masterson Finbury

Chang Ch'un Meditation Center

Anders

Selina

Vickers

Shreve

Penrod

Dr. Cheesewright (wtf?)

Mr. Van Druten

William Portlaw and Alida Ascott

Marion and Leopold

Nguyen Van Troy and Tran Houng Lang

Edna Bunthorne

Gabriel Bagradian

Leon Gonsalez

Chuzzlewit, Ltd.

Uncle Thorkell (what?)

Rabbi Wasserman

Mr. Brimblecombe

Sphere: Related Content