Scraping the barrel

I just had a quick look to see if there was anything remotely worthwhile on television tonight.

I discovered that the programmers have not only reached the bottom of the barrel but have scraped their way through and are well on their way to the Earth's core. 

I swear they were challenged to come up with the most tedious, boring, mind numbingly ghastly subject and tonight they are broadcasting the winners.

Runners up are RTE with their documentary "Garth Brooks: Tomorrow Never Came"

This is described as "Following the trail of events of the American country singer's comeback tour, which was announced in January but was cancelled after Dublin City Council only granted event licenses for three of the five intended performances at Croke Park throughout July."

Sweet suffering fuck!!

But the winner has to be TV3 who are coming up with their offering as a direct challenge to RTE on the same evening……

A documentary called "Garth Brooks: What Went Wrong?".

This piece of mental vacuum is described as a "Documentary about the recent cancellation of American singer Garth Brooks' tour in Dublin, which let down thousands of fans and thrust the country into the media spotlight. With interviews from the Croke Park residents, Aiken Promotions and Dublin City Council."

I really am speechless.

I'm off to the pub.

 

Waiting

I hate waiting.

It's bad enough when someone says they'll "be there at three" or whatever and there is still no sign of them by five, but it's a hell of a lot worse when there is no given time.

"What time would you like us to deliver?  AM or PM?" they asked.

"PM" says I as AM is fast asleep time.

But that's it.  Fucking PM.  And PM stretches technically from midday to midnight so I haven't a fucking clue when they are delivering.

I have been sitting waiting patiently.  Still no word.  I have to get some stuff from the village but I can't because I have to be here when they arrive.  My presence is an imperative, and I just know if I nip out for a couple of minutes they'll come and make a fucking bollox of the delivery.

I could have gone to the village and back thirty times in the time I have been waiting but I have a sneaking suspicion that they are parked just down the road, waiting for me to go out whereupon they will deliver and make a right shite of it.

I'm still waiting.

I fucking hate waiting.

 

Not so innocent

Isn't it amazing how innocent society has become?

From a personal perspective, I see little evidence of this, but then who am I to judge?  But to class my friends and acquaintances as "innocent" would be pushing the boundaries of linguistic accuracy just a tad.  Most of 'em have histories that would make the Devil himself blush.

Yet whenever some skobie or other lowlife lets fly with a gun in a housing estate and some bystander gets caught in the crossfire, that person always "innocent".  How often have you hear about "Joe Rasher who was also killed was an innocent bystander".  They are always fucking innocent!

Apparently anyone under the age of 18 is also as pure as the driven snow.  [Just as an aside, how do you drive snow?  Where's the steering wheel?].  How often have we heard that Big Tobacco/Big Fast Food/Big Sugar [delete as appropriate] targets innocent cheeeeldren?  Bollox!  Most of the kids I know would happily rob your eye out of its socket and still come back for change.

I can only assume that there is some twisted perversion of logic at play here.  If someone is "innocent" then by default anyone else who is mentioned must be "guilty", and of course "guilty" means they should be hung drawn and quartered.  It's a neat little ploy to nudge the scales of justice against the "non-innocent"?

But there again, maybe the only people to be caught in the crossfire are those of pure mind and good deeds?  Could Karma be having a great belly laugh by picking off only those who are saints personified? Are those bystanders really people of impeccable character who have never had so much as a bad thought in their lives?

I hope that's the case.

At least then I know I'll never be killed in the crossfire.

Heh!

Weapons grade tobacco

I wouldn't consider myself as vain.

I have never dyed my hair [or beard] and never will.

If I lost my hair I wouldn't wear a wig.

I have never worn makeup of any shape form or description.

You may therefore gather that I have never used a sunbed.  Not only have I never used one, but I don't ever recollect even seeing one. 

My attitude to sunbeds is that I think they perform quite a valuable service to society.  They are an excellent application of the Darwinian principle that they fry only those people stupid enough and vain enough to climb into them.  If people want to grill themselves to a crisp then that's fine by me.  And I think even Nanny would be hard pressed to convince people that there is such a thing as second-hand tanning? They are virtually unique in that they grill only those who deserve to be grilled, and as such are a perfect culling device.

With regard to under 18 using the devices, well that's up to the parents.  If they are moronic enough to allow their spawn to use them then that is a simple way of ensuring that that particular gene is eradicated from evolution.  The parents have to know about it as the tan is just a little bit of a hint as to what Junior has been up to.

It therefore hit me with a whallop of supreme indifference when I read that sunbeds are to banned for anyone under 18, as and from next Monday.  Good old Nanny is protecting the brain-dead from themselves once more.

It did come as a bit of a surprise though to learn that sunbeds are as carcinogenic as tobacco and plutonium?

Wow!

Sunbeds and plutonium emit radiation which accounts for their danger, but tobacco?  I had no idea it was that dangerous?

I ask myself which would I rather do?  Spend an hour in a room with a bucket of plutonium, an hour in a sunbed or an hour puffing on my pipe?  I think I know the answer.

I wonder which Kathleen O'Meara would prefer?

Fucking idiotic twat.

 

 

Stating the bleeding obvious

I presume most people have heard the term "middle age spread"?

It's a well known phenomenon that people's waistlines tend to expand a little as they grow older.  I heard somewhere that it's due to the muscles slackening off a bit after the excesses of youth, causing the contents of the abdomen to head south and settle in a nice comfortable pudding of entrails around the waist.

Well, bugger me rigid but "research" has just discovered this feature of aging

As a natural consequence of aging, apparently 80% of us are now obese?

They tried measuring our BMI.  They discovered that 36% are obese and a further 48% are overweight.  But having come up with these figures they decided that maybe BMI wasn't the best method so they scrapped those figures and decided to measure our waistlines instead.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but from my somewhat narrow experience of life, people tend to come in different shapes and sizes.  Some are short and some are tall, and a lot of people tend to fall somewhere in between the two?  So as height can vary from four to eight feet, waistlines also must vary accordingly?  Yet in their infinite wisdom they decided to use girth as their yardstick?  And their conclusion is that 80% of us have noticed an increase in belt-size.  Fuck me but that's amazing!

Having made this staggering discovery they then go on to say that people of increased girth visit their doctors more often – "Levels of arthritis and the frequency with which older adults go to the GP or take medication also increase as their waists expand."  Good God!  Surely this must be deserving of a Nobel Prize?  Or at least a Pulitzer?  So older people are visiting their doctors more often because their trousers are getting tighter?  And here was I thinking that older people visit their doctors more often because various bits of them are beginning to fail as a consequence of old age and that the spreading waistline was another consequence of the same ageing process?  I stand corrected.  How very silly of me.

"A 2012 study estimated that overweight and obesity issues cost the economy €1.3billion through increased use of health services, absenteeism and early deaths."

€1.3 billion?  Wow!  I wonder how that figure comes about?  Surely every illness disease or injury costs the health service something?  Isn't that what the health service is there for?  But of course throwing out a figure like that is going to shed a poor light on the older generations and have the younger braindead Twitter Generation calling for a culling of the elderly?  And absenteeism doesn't cost the economy anything.  It may be a small headache for the employer but it has zero effect on the overall economy.  As for death?  Surely death must be a bonus to the economy?  No more pensions to pay out?  No more annoying calls on the health service?    No marks for that little statement.

The only surprise about this "research" is that they have failed to mention any damage to the cheeeeldren, which is a major oversight.

Quality of research: 2%

Conclusions: 0%

Overall score: Would you ever fuck off and stop wasting oxygen.