What Can Electricity Do For YOU?

You know, I've been saying we're doomed for quite some time now. But I suppose that I had thought that it was only a recent phenomenon in which we, as a people, were propelling ourselves down a path of stupidity. I'm beginning to think that people in general (excluding the majority of you reading this right now) have always been rather dim-bulbed. I say that because apparently, at one point, it was necessary to inform folks of all of the things that electricity in the home can do for you. Wait. What?

Look, I wasn't around during the advent of all of the electricity, but I'd think that all I'd need to see is that light bulb glowing and realize that life is good! But the thing is, this video doesn't seem to have been made around the advent or discovery of electricity. I mean, it does reference television at some point, so it's not like the wonders of electricity were not well known during the filming of this odd, odd PSA. The video is below and I'm going to run through just a few of the things that I found particularly entertaining. Behold!

1930's Infomercial About Electricity, Funny - Click here for more blooper videos

Do you know that electricity will switch on your kettle and when it boils, make tea, light the lamp and ring the alarm to wake you up? Am I sleeping with Rube Goldberg? Who in the world had that contraption next to their bed?

"And when, half an hour later, when your husband is waiting to get off to work, it will boil another kettle for breakfast and cook his toast at the table for him in the twink. Perhaps he'll even offer you a piece!" OK, I might not have heard the lovely British fellow correctly when he talked about cooking toast in the "twink". I've listened to it several times and that's the best I can come up with. Regardless, maybe your husband will OFFER you a piece? A piece? Of the toast YOU just cooked for HIM? Good Lord...

But this voice over guy is a crack up! After making the comment about the guy offering a piece of toast up to the little lady, the guy says "I'll be he doesn't when we're not filming him!" Nice!

"In this country, the waffle griddle may still be something of a newcomer, but it is growing in favor every day." (Apparently this wasn't filmed in Belgium, home of delicious waffles!) But here's where he loses me. "It uses only one unit in twenty hours and will also give you toasted sandwiches." What? A unit of what? Twenty hours? Is there a timer on this waffle cooker contraption? And toasted sandwiches? In a waffle iron? Er, griddle. Machine. Whatever! There are no sandwiches in my waffle iron!

This whole thing cracks me up! "And if you're husband feels in need of a little fresh air..." Enter some guy who was not the guy sharing his toast with you earlier. "Hello! You've got a new husband!" Funny how electricity informercial guy can mention that it's a different person playing the husband, but do you think anyone ever wanted to talk about the second Darrin? Not so much. Odd.

"...Electricity to warm you as you recline so beautifully in front of the drawing room fire as you wonder what's keeping your husband out so late. I wouldn't stay out so late, madam, were I your husband." Is he hitting on our electricity model? I believe he is! First he tells her that her husband is a selfish toast hoarder, now he's telling her that he's out carousing around! Does he know that she can't hear him?

It's just a tad bit unnerving for me to see the hot water heater positioned directly above the tub. Why is it there? There had to have been plumbing pipes at that time, didn't there? I mean, it's not like the tub was the only appliance the in the home that used hot water. Why positioned directly over the tub?

Well I don't know if this little Public Service Announcement explaining how electricity can be useful in the human home would have been successful at convincing me of anything other than those women did a hell of a lot of work all the live long day...electricity or not!

Sphere: Related Content

X-Fact-or Fiction?

Yep. I knew that there was something about those folks over there in England, the Chawner family who, for the past 11 years, has received benefits because they are too fat to work. That's right. Too fat to work. Fat, perhaps. Too fat to work? I don't think so. From what I can tell, these folks are scamming the system over there across the pond and people must be buying it because they've been receiving $26,000 a year for the past eleven years. I'm not buying it. Here's why:

Closer Magazine ran an article about the Chawners on March 19, 2009. That article paints a slightly different portrait of this family than an article that ran in The Telegraph on March 17, 2009. Granted, in The Telegraph article, there were definitely holes in the Chawner's story. Their claim that their enormous weight is caused by heredity, yet they eat bacon sandwiches every day for lunch. It's things like that which make me question their entire story. (It's also things like that which make me wonder where I can get a bacon sandwich. Yum. There's always room for bacon.)

The Telegraph article said that the Chawners claimed to eat cereal for breakfast, bacon for lunch and microwave meat pies and some sort of potato for dinner. That article also had Mrs. Chawner claiming that she only spent £50 a week on food (which might be true if all they bought was bacon. And there was only one of them.) The closer article makes the same claim, only it also includes that the family "spends their time watching TV and scoffing biscuits, crisps and sandwiches." (You've really gotta love a publication that isn't afraid to use the term "scoffing", don't you? That's truth in reporting right there!) The Closer also mentioned that the Chawners go through "...18 bags of crisps, 30 eggs, 12 rolls, 10 burgers, 12 crumpets, four large pies, two packets of biscuits, two packets of chocolate bars, 1kg of potatoes and a litre of wine." Ah, yes. Drown your "too fat" sorrow in that litre of wine. That'll help your diabetes, Mr. Chawner, I'm sure of it! What is wrong with people?

Speaking of Mr. Chawner, he explained how he ended up not working (he used to be a truck driver). "The diabetes was making me fall asleep at the wheel. I haven’t bothered looking for another job because driving is all I know. I’m not good at English so I couldn’t work in an office, and I’d get too tired standing in a factory." You'd get too tired? Standing?! I'm guessing that you'd probably be doing something other than just standing there, sir. See, that's the thing about dozing off. It rarely happens while you're in constant motion. And I've seen factories, mostly in cartoons, but still! Those cartoon factories have the little mice or cats or whatever they have working there always on the go! Stuff keeps coming off of that conveyor belt (candy, tires, mops, you name it) so fast that those little guys can hardly keep up! They usually end up running around quite a bit in order to prevent some sort of chaos that inevitably happens anyway. So you should really look into that factory work, as I don't think you'd be able to doze off as easily as you think.

Mrs. Chawner "...last worked in the ’80s at a horse-riding school for a few months. (Worked as what? The horse?) But she hasn’t worked since she developed epilepsy and asthma over 16 years ago, both a result of being overweight." She says, "I can’t work because I could have an epileptic fit at any time. I could work from home, putting stamps on envelopes or something, but I must admit I’ve actually never looked into it.” Yeah, why bother when the government will give you money to do absolutely nothing. Now, she can't work because she could have an "epileptic fit at any time" (a condition that, if you're prone to, can be quite frightening and extremely inconvenient), but she can go to the store to pick up that litre of wine! What if she had "an epileptic fit" whilst wine shopping? That doesn't seem to concern her as much as the working part does. Shocking, I know.

Now, if that's not enough, we can look to an article in The Times from March 22, 2009 states that "The family...spend their days in front of a TV borrowed from a friend. Said Philip Chawner: “We love TV. It’s on from the moment we get up. Often I’m so tired from watching TV that I have to have a nap.” And from Mrs. Chawner: "We all love nibbling on biscuits. I once bought some pears, but they tasted funny." Funny? Funny how? Like fruit?!

But here is where I've managed to certify these folks as freeloaders. Over there at VoteForTheWorst.com they have an article from October, 2008 which reports the Chawners were evicted from their home after "dozens of complaints about 'loud singing' keeping them (the neighbors) awake late at night." Wait. What? They were "...evicted after 130 complaints were made against them in less than a year over playing loud music, singing late at night and foul and abusive language directed towards neighbours." Um, I thought they got tired from watching TV? But wait! There's more!

In a reference to Emma, the article reads, "The 19-year-old trainee hairdresser, who famously appeared on the TV talent show wearing a wedding-style dress made by her dad..." The what made by who for what? Huh? "Emma, 19, was notoriously rejected from the X Factor last year after singing Celine Dion's Titanic 'like a baby' and wearing a 'wedding dress' handmade by her father." A 'wedding dress' made by Naps After TV guy? What? Behold!

Oh, Lord. OK, that's it! Thaaaat's it. I've had enough of these folks. They can trot around auditioning for X-Factor (which would appear to be an American Idol for England and a bunch of other countries that are not the US) and/or spend time tailoring very long dresses. They can stay up late at night singing and playing music. They can haul their stuff out of their apartment that they were evicted from because of said late night singing and music playing. But they can't work?!

England? You've been had.

Sphere: Related Content

There's Fat and Then There's Lazy

Well, UK folks, you guys win this round. And while that sounds sort of like a compliment, it's more like the byproduct of the sigh of relief that I just exhaled, as I feared this story would be located in Flori-duh. But no! Blackburn, over there in Lancashire, England is the winner of this family of four! Meet the Chawners. Behold!

From left to right we have Emma, 19, her mother Audrey, 57, Audrey's husband Philip, 53, and their other daughter Samantha, 21. These folks haven't worked in eleven years. Eleven, that is correct. And due to their "hardship", they receive £22,508 a year in benefits. (That's $32,438.53 in US dollars, by the way.) And now, according to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, the Chawners claim that "the money they receive is insufficient to live on." It is probably right about now that I should probably mention that they "can't work" because they're "too fat." Wait. What?

Correct. "Too fat to work." (Their words, not mine. Accurate, but their words none the less.) They're claiming that "their weight is a hereditary condition." I imagine it is. I imagine their forefathers ate too much, just like their forefathers before them, and so on. Oh, come on! Are you kidding me?! Look, don't get me wrong, I have plenty of sympathy for those with the whacked out metabolism. But these folks don't strike me as being a victim to their own heredity as much as their are a victim to their own refrigerator. Let's see what else they had to say about their situation (before we come to the same conclusion that I just did).

The Chawners "...claim to spend £50 ($72.06 USD) a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day." According to The Telegraph "The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men." So eating too much according to the guidelines, but still claim it's "heredity". Interesting claim. What else?

Mrs. Chawner explains their daily eating habits as "We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner." For those of you wondering about the "bacon butties", that's basically a bacon sandwich. Behold!

Oh, yeah. Eating (at least) one of those every day, that won't cause a problem. Nah. (That probably has nothing to do with why Philip is 336 lbs., Audrey is 336 lbs., Emma is 238 lbs. and Samantha is 252 lbs. That's 1162 lbs!) I can only assume that they're called "bacon butties" because after eating enough of them, you're going to end up with a bacon butt.

And in Mrs. Chawner's most telling and contradictory statement yet, she says, "All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight." Yes, dearie, but if it was "in your genes" I don't think you'd be telling me how expensive fruits and vegetables are. Nor would you be telling me you eat a bacon butt sandwich for lunch every day. I'm having a hard time believing that they're only spending £50 ($72.06 USD) per week on food. How much is bacon?! Well, according to Bacon Today (Bacon Today? Oh, God bless the Internet!) bacon in England is $3.49/lb (£4.41/kg). Yeah, I don't think I'm buying that. Their story, not the bacon. I'd gladly buy bacon. Mmmm....bacon.

So, because they're "disabled" Mr. and Mrs. Chawner receive "£177 ($255.09 USD) in income support and incapacity benefit" each week AND Mrs. Chawner also gets another £330 ($475.60 USD) per-month as a "disability allowance for epilepsy and asthma", both of which are a result of what? Being overweight, that is correct. Mr. Chawner brings in his share of extra benefits as well. He gets £71 ($102.33 USD) a month for his Type 2 diabetes which is a result of what? Being overweight, correct again! (He "was on a waiting list for a gastric band last year, but a heart condition made the operation unsuitable." Wait a minute. They have waiting lists for the gastric band surgery in England? Why is there a waiting list? It's not like a transplant. Regardless, did the heart condition come up while he was waiting? Because you'd think that would be something his doctor (who we have heard nothing about, nor have we heard anything from) would have known about before putting him on the list.)

Daughter Samantha gets £84 ($121.06 USD) in Jobseekers' Allowance (which seems to be like the US equivalent of unemployment) each fortnight (which seems to be like the calendar equivalent of 2 weeks), and daughter Emma "...who is training to be a hairdresser, gets £58 ($83.59) every two weeks under a hardship fund for low-income students." Emma sees things like this: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise. We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how." And again I will point out that "student" and "don't have time to exercise" are really not the same as "hereditary condition". No, they're the opposite of "hereditary condition."

And Mr. Chawner actually said the words, "What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table.(Clearly it does that!) It's not our fault we can't work. We deserve more." Um, what else do you need, sir? More? Your bills are paid. Your family has bacon sandwiches. What else is there? You've been doing this for eleven years. And I'm sure this will sound crazy, but you could always work and earn more. Just a thought! Just a crazy, crazy thought.

Actually, why? Why do you deserve more, sir? What is it that makes you so "deserving" of "more"? Why is it that you're so entitled to have "more"? I missed that part. (Is it because, judging from the pictures of you, that you only seem to have that one shirt?) But you come across as a bit ungrateful for everything that you have been given by your government which was paid for (I'm assuming) by other taxpayers who work. Don't feel like you're getting quite enough free money, do you now?

Look, I'm well aware that most of us are only a couple of Krispy Kremes away from putting on a pair of sweats and never looking back. Well aware. But the majority of people...OK, wait. Never mind, because the majority of people lately seem to vary between large and huge. So now my point is that large or not, the vast majority of folks manage to work. I have a difficult time believing that these folks are SO obese (they're large, but they seem to be mobile) that they can't work even part time. I mean, come on, they don't even have a Rascal! And I see NO oxygen tanks there! (And that's a lot more than I can say about the last time I was in a Wal-Mart. People too large to walk driving their Rascals and people too large to breathe sucking in their oxygen. With all of the buzzing and the wheezing it was like being in a senior citizen science fiction movie or something.)

I have the feeling that we're going to be hearing more about these folks in the near future. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be any sort of positive report. I'm guessing something that will clear things up as to how legitimate these folks are in regard to what The Telegraph reported.

Sphere: Related Content

A Day The Gay Way

As I was searching for candidates to compete for my made up award for Most Inane Method of Protest for 2008 (the MIMP), the "event" scheduled to take place on Wednesday, December 10, is definitely in the running and is a serious contender to take the title. You don't know which event I'm talking about? Man, where do you hang out and how do I get there? You lucky dog, you. I wish I didn't have to hear about these things. But I digress. No, it's not International Human Rights Day that I'm referring to (because that also takes place on Dec. 10, but it isn't a protest, so it won't be competing for the coveted MIMP award.). No, that event would be the Day Without a Gay. Wait. What?

That's correct. A Day Without a Gay seems to be named in a similar fashion to that of the Day Without Immigrants event that took place a few years ago. (Now that event I was looking forward to, as I figured that for at least 24 hours, everyone would speak English. But it didn't really happen like that. It ended up being more like A Day Without Leaf Blowers. I was pretty disappointed, I'll admit. And it's that very disappointment that's caused me to not set similar high hopes for this event. Because at first, I was pretty stoked at the thought of 24 hours without a mullet anywhere.) The premise of both is basically to make others aware of your presence by being gone. Ah, yes, the ironic protest premise. A classic. What?

You know, sort of like the saying "You don't know what you've got until it's gone". If you're not at work, people are going to miss you being there and doing the work that you do. That's because this premise makes the assumption that everyone is so valuable to their company that the place will just crumble if a day is allowed to go on without their presence. (And I'm going to just guess that that isn't always the case.)

According to the Day Without A Gay website (which is very colorfully themed, as I'm sure you can imagine), "We've reacted to anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona Florida, and Arkansas with anger, with resolve, and with courage. NOW, it's time to show America and the world how we love." I see.

While that's probably true, where were you folks when the "anti-gay ballot initiatives" were being passed in other states in previous years?! Because according to the New York Times (printing all the news that's fit), "More than 40 states now have constitutional bans or laws against same-sex marriages." Forty?!?! Folks, in 2004, "...voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", so sayeth Stateline.org. Where was everyone in 2004? Of 2005, 2006 and 2007 for that matter? What has y'all so riled up this time? Why is this different?

"Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love."

Right. Because gay people (oh, and their allies! Can't forget the allies! Who are the allies again? France? Spain? America's Hat?) are the only ones who can "love"? (Frankly, love's a little overrated. Now, tolerance? There's one to think about. But I digress.) I was going to take issue with the 'mobilized' characterization, but I suppose it can be accurate. They might be 'mobilized', but they're certainly not very good at it. They didn't 'mobilize' until after Prop 8 was defeated. They didn't 'mobilize' back in 2004 when twenty two percent of the states passed anti-gay legislation. I can give them 'mobility', but I can't give them 'effective' or 'timely' 'mobility'.

"On December 10, 2008 the gay community will take a historic stance against hatred by donating love to a variety of different causes."

Is it a historic stance because of the gay thing? I'm just wondering, because stances against 'hatred' have happened before. And as long as I'm on the topic, I don't like it when the word 'hatred' is thrown out there as the reason that anti-gay legislation is passing all over the place. It's not all about 'hatred'. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that a very small fraction of it is about 'hatred'. And here's another news flash on this same topic: Those who are against gay marriage but do not 'hate' people who are gay? Those people get angry when they are told that they 'hate'. That really turns some people off to ever listening to what you have to say. As someone with sage wisdom once explained to me, it's about people being afraid to redefine what a marriage is. That's not hate. That's fear. Please make a note.

"On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in "gay"--and donate your time to service!"

Oh, for cryin' out loud. What? Call in "gay"? Like, "Hi, this is Bob. I'm gay today and I won't be able to come into the office. Please see that Johnson gets the Penske account up to date and I'll take it from there when I return." Like that? Actually, the idea is to not go to work (again, because you're gay) and during the time that you would have been at work you're supposed to be volunteering somewhere. Businesses or organizations that are participating in this "event" can post their information at the Day Without A Gay website so folks will know what they're in for. From what I can tell, a lot of the 'opportunities' are not things that seem like they would take up your entire day as much as going to your job would.

I'm not so sure that leaving your employer short handed is all that great of a way to do....something. This isn't like A Day Without Immigrants, where the jobs that they weren't going to were jobs that Americans allegedly won't do. It's not like there are a bunch of jobs out there that straight people won't do. (OK, there aren't a lot of jobs straight people won't do.) But aside from that, if you'll recall, the "immigrants" (Translation: People who are in this country illegally) held massive, and I mean massive rallies and marches across the country, all the while leaves and grass clippings went unblown for 24 hours. You couldn't help but notice all of the "immigrants" on a day that was, as the name of the day implied, supposed to have no "immigrants". The No Gay thing isn't like that. It's....um....something different.

But it's unclear to me what that 'something' is. So since this thing is on the same day as International Human Rights Day, I figured I'd check them out and see what they're doing. Turns out, they've been doing this for 60 years, so they're old pros. They seem to spend the day with art exhibits, speeches, demonstrations and things of that nature to bring people's attention and awareness to the subject of Human Rights for all. There wasn't anything in there about volunteering. Not that volunteering isn't a grand thing to do on any day not just Human Rights Day! I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that for a group that's been promoting their gig and sending their message for 60 years, you'd think that perhaps those looking to attach themselves and their own movement/cause to that of the International Human Rights folks, might take a gander at how they have done things for sixty years and do something along the same lines. Well, I'd think that. But I'm not in charge of A Day Without A Gay (thank God).

You know, this is one of those things where the saying "Any publicity is good publicity" isn't necessarily the case. If a large number of people "call in gay" and then there is not a large presence of extra volunteers throughout various communities, it won't look good. And if this is about changing people's perceptions so that they'll vote differently, you might want to make sure that you're going to make a positive, or at least not a negative, impression. So far, this whole "movement" to have equal rights for those who are gay has been a little bit like herding cats. I mean, come on, there are over forty states with anti-gay marriage laws/legislation and now it's time to do something? Herding cats. And lesbians have a lot of cats, so as you can imagine, it's quite the chore.

So remember, if one of your co-workers can't make it to work on Wednesday, don't be alarmed. They're just gay.

Sphere: Related Content