1.6.1 iRant: Drug addicts shouldn't be in a position of power

I'll be totally honest I don't actually know why I'm even bothering to rant about this, because basically its true.

I mean, people have enough trouble controlling themselves under normal circumstances without adding an addictive substance to the mix, so its a given that someone addicted to a narcotic substance shouldn't really be in a position of power, especially in a position of power over others...right?

Here is the problem, thinking along the most basic of lines, I wouldn't trust a heroin addict with the controls of a car that I am in. That goes for all forms of transport. Equally I probably wouldn't trust the said person with my bank details. Yes I'm blanketing, no I am not looking at the individual for who they are...I'm sorry but F&$K That! They can't be trusted!!!!!

There must be something wrong with me, because I thought that was cut and copy...BUT! it turns out not to be the case!

*Lets go back, way back....back into, oh you get the picture*

OK so I first started looking for famous people with narcotic habits...I knew this would reap an instant plethora of results, it almost had to, celebs have a lot of time on their hands and 'excess unproductive time - focus = folly'...(I like that formula, I should patent it). So I wasn't surprised that I was inundated with results, here are a select few:

(I will no doubt crush the image of some of your heroes...)

Charles Dickens – The author of A Tale of Two Cities and A Christmas Carol was addicted to opium for many years and used the drug heavily right up to the time of his death (by massive stroke).

Florence Nightengale – It was discovered after her death that the most famous nurse who ever lived was a notorious opium users.

Sigmund Freund - physician, "Father of Psychoanalysis". (Cocaine)

Salvador Dali - painter "Everyone should eat hashish, but only once."

OK, so out of this small list the first 3 really surprised me, I didn't have a clue about their personal habits.

So like I said it wouldn't be hard finding celebs with addictions, so I thought let me stay in line with the subject of the rant and see if I could find any influential, important, global figures that were a little lacking of self control...oh shit I wish I didn't!!!

Brace yourself for this list:

Marion Barry - mayor of Washington, D.C. (Cocaine)
Bono Sonny - U.S. Senator, actor (Prescription Drugs)
George W. Bush - Governor of Texas (Cocaine)
Winston Churchill - British prime minister (Opium and Alcohol)
Grover Cleveland - U.S. president (Cocaine)
William Clinton - U.S. president "Well, I did smoke pot, but I didn't inhale." (Marijuana)
Ram Daas - psychologist, author, guru (LSD)
Ben Franklin - inventor, publisher, scientist, American statesman. (Opium and Marijuana)
Ulysses S. Grant - U.S. president (Cocaine and Alcohol)
Thomas Jefferson - U.S. president, inventor, architect, marijuana farmer. (No surprises here Marijuana)
Joseph McCarthy - U.S. Senator (Opium)
Nixon, Richard - U.S. President (Dilantin)
Plotinus - Roman philosopher, 205-270 AD (Opium)

Right...so I made sure to make this second list longer (significantly) than the first, now just at a glance I can see that the evidence blows the stereotype away. Not only because there are so many entries, but the position held by the entries are quite simply, that of the most powerful/influential in the world!!!!

There have been 43 US presidents, 5 of which appear on this list and of those 5, 3 were on *Class A* narcotics. Now strictly speaking what people do in their own time should have nothing to do with what you do at work (unless your a pilot or coach driver drinking heavily 2hrs before your flight/shift) but I really cannot find comfort in the idea that I'm going to elect/support a person that is losing the battle with their own will power. My simple sense won't allow it!!!

What is really interesting about this list is not limited to the people on it, I'm looking at a broader concept here. The people on this list have addictions and huge responsibilities, so where does my formula from earlier fit in? 'excess unproductive time - focus = folly'...are these influentials actually busy at all?

Deeper still is the idea that 'anyone' can be in a position of power and control, even drug addicts. I love the concept in principle but I am extremely pissed off about the fact that this concept doesn't filter down to lower levels of society. I know it sounds scary but I think in a funny way it would have a reverse effect on the crime rate, humour me here, imagine if your neighbourhood 'junky' didn't have wait till you left your house unattended so he/she could rob it? Imagine if he/she had to make his/her own way to their employment? Like actually leave the same time as you....

That would be an instant decrease in the crime rate and number of unemployed (no I'm not saying all the unemployed are criminals or junkies).

Imagine the working environment, competition would be high in the work place because any prospect of a raise or a bonus means 'MORE DRUGS' and so they would work harder than your average 'Joe'. In fact the only issue I can see is with the heroin addicts taking a hit at lunch time and ...well....not coming back for 4hrs (time it takes for functional consciousness to resume - subject to individual of course). Junkies would love to have a sustainable revenue stream....giving them jobs would provide that...definitely!

I'm so sorry I digressed massively there! Back to the list of 'influentials'...the standout feature of the list for me was how many people used Opium. Its an overwhelming number and I'm not sure why...that is something else I have to look into.

The list would have the gullible believe that American Presidents/Senators are partial to drugs, or that Opium is OK if your ever in office or position of power...but that aside that, the most ironic piece of comedy out of all this (for me anyway) is that Adolf Hitler, (Mr 45 degree salute) didn't partake in any narcotics at all...none, he didn't drink or smoke. With regards to his relationship with drugs he was a paragon of virtue...

iRant and I recon we should give junkies a chance to be in positions of power...oh sorry it seems we already have.

1.4 iRant: Stereotypes + Ignorance = Racism

Racism! My all time favourite subject...I absolutely relish the opportunity to witness some verbal racism, love it, love it, love it! Not because its actually enjoyable, but because some of the stupidity that comes from the minds of some people is absolutely hilarious... For example, if you open another tab on your browser and navigate to www.google.com (I don't know why that wouldn't be your home page but hey, each to their own) and type in the following :

"Can I get ai"

Do NOT and I repeat DO NOT hit search or enter on the keyboard, just wait for Google's search engine to toss up some 'suggestions'... the very first suggestion that comes up is actual hilarity, it is the silliest thing I've heard outside of "How much is a 1.99 meal?". This is the reason I love racism so much...please do not misunderstand me, I'm not an advocate of racism or racist conduct, I'm just entertained by the ignorant verbal (or written) results.

The title of this post is an equation, well in actual fact its not, simply because StereoTypes + Ignorance does not equal Racism, its a little more complex than that, however when you initially read it, it seems to make sense and so thats how I labelled it!

Closer scrutiny will confirm that a 'Stereotype' as part of its nature, is quite close to ignorance in its basic form, being that a Stereotype is standardized and simplified conceptions of groups, based on some prior assumptions. These standardized/simplified concepts and assumptions are NOT often based on objective truth, in fact they are normally centered around subjective or even unverifiable content-matter. So you are often audience to some really stupid submissions and I just can't help but laugh!

Ignorance or at least the concept of it is a funny thing in itself, in its implicit form the word means "something or someone who is uninformed" this is neither a good or bad thing...its just a thing. However the word 'ignorant' is tossed around quite freely and often to make the recipient feel inferior to the sender! More over I think the word 'ignorant' is often used in place of the word 'stubborn', which is done out of ignorance I guess (lol this is funny). I think ignorance is often the fuel for stereotypes and because stereotypes are usually about a specific group of people I would liken that combination to prejudice and once prejudice turns up to a party that stereotypes and ignorance are hosting there will be nothing but racism as a result.....*takes deep breaths*.

Right now I've got that off my chest time for some examples:

Stereotypes

Pets in the West have life the best
Blacks and chicken
Vicars are kiddie fiddlers - Well this used to be a stereotype.. (I know I know low blow.)
Rednecks are inbreds - No comment
Drug addicts shouldn't be in positions of power
All Muslims are terrorists - Absolute bullshit!
Jews are particularly frugal - Erm...no comment

Ignorance

Origin of 'Nigger'

Hmmmm...I'm enjoying this ranting I tell ya!

1.5 iRant: Pets in the West have life the best...

Now I'm going to be very careful about how I approach this rant, because I know there are very many animal lovers out there. I too am an animal lover...ish, kinda, of sorts.

OK...let me put it to you straight, Simple Simon loves animals, but Simple Simon REALLY loves animals that are in their own habitats! I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I know, they make great pets and are part of the family and all that good stuff, but Simple Simon can't share his apartment, flat ,condo or house with 'Lassie'. It just won't happen...

What is interesting however, (hence the name of the post) is this relationship close relationship with animals (dogs and cats especially) seems to really only occur or be prominent in the western world (Western world = Europe and America...IMO). I'm fortunate enough to have friends from all over the world, OK that is an open statement let me list where they are from *takes deep breathe*

Bangledesh
Indian
Pakistan
Sri-Lanka
Vietnam
Japan
China
Phillipines
Australia
St Lucia
Jamaica
Barbados
Puerto Rico
Europe
Nigeria
Ghana
Angola
Zimbabwe
South Africa


*Takes deep breath*

So with the list above ( I hope I've remembered everyone) I have taken a look at their habits with pets, sort of my own experiment if you will. Here are my findings:

(Do not take offense to the grouping!)

My friends from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri-Lanka do not have dogs period. I think this may have a little to do with religious beliefs, I think its said that angels will not enter a house which contains a dog. Or something along those lines.

My friends from China, Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam don't seem to have any Cats, Dogs, Gerbils, Snakes, Hamsters, Ferrets or Guinea Pigs and I can't work out for the life of me why. In fact come to think of it, they all seem to live in neighborhoods where the local population doesn't seem to have dogs or cats either...I'll have to think more into that one.

My friends from Australia, St Lucia, Barbados, Jamaica and Puerto Rico have dogs, but they are all for practical purposes...the dogs guard the household. The dogs are shown an heir of love to an extent but that love/respect allows the animal to know that it's realm is outside the house and the owners realm is inside. You are very unlikely to see a dog on the front room chair or in someones bed in these countries.

My friends from Europe all have houses heaving with pets that have equal or greater rights than the human occupants, the dog can piss on the carpet in the lounge and all that will happen is the humans in the house will argue over who didn't take 'Rex' for a walk. Meanwhile 'Mutley' is in the corner watching the humans mop up his piss and laughing his head off.

My friends from Nigeria, Ghana and Angola have dogs under the same agreement as those from the Carribean and Australia.

The reason I'm breaking up and seemingly segrigating Zimbabwe and South African is because I'm fortunate enough to have a mixture of black and white friends from these countries and I must say there is a bit of a pattern...

My white friends from Zimbabwe and South Africa have a very European attitude towards pets, I don't find this surprising due to historic links with the Dutch and again my black friends from said places have dogs for practical reasons.

Right so thats the patterns out the way...time for some facts and figures!

*Lets do the math*

I kid you not some people have done some math on how much exactly it costs to own a dog...here are the findings:

Blood Hound - Life expectancy 9yrs - Cost for 9yr period = £19,833
Boxer - Life expectancy 12yrs - Cost for 12yr period = £21,760
Rottweiler - Life expectancy 12yrs - Cost for 12yr period = £24,340

I'm going to stop there, if you want to know about other breeds go here.

Now stop me if I'm wrong but these lifetime costs are looking like salaries...and simple math will have me find that these dogs are costing over £1,500 a year, easily.

I'm going to be an advocate now and list the governments spending on the homeless:

...and that is where I managed to undo myself can you believe it took me about 5mins (less) to find the average spend for the lifetime of a pet, yet I searched for over a week (the reason there haven't been any new posts!) and still didn't find any figures for the national budget spend for the homeless in the UK. I have loads of estimates on the total number of homeless in the UK, breakdowns for number of homeless per local council, political constituency, almost every other type of breakdown EXCEPT £ sterling spend per person!

So..alas, I can't make the cross reference comparison I so badly wanted to, in order to prove my point that pets in the west have life the best...I'm blatantly upset about that!

..but then again the fact that there aren't any monetary figures, could be case in point? As in, the UK government cares less about the homeless than they do about pets?? I'm jus sayin....


I'm still saying "Pets in the west have life the best" I don't care!...oh look 'Rex' just took a dump in the kitchen.


P.s.

Killing a police dog carries the same penalty as killing a police officer

Knocking over a dog and not stopping could also see you in serious trouble with the law (if there are witnesses that shop you).


...irant even with no opposing evidence.

P.s.s If you can find figures for the amount spent on the homeless for any country or government please post me a link...thanks!

1.6 iRant: Blacks and Chicken

This is a very funny stereotype...in fact I'm actually quite silly for even taking this one on because...well erm, its a bit of a no brainer.

Black people LOVE chicken, it is the sacrificial meat of the black diet. Please do not get offended because I'm using the term 'Black' to describe a people and please understand when I say 'Black' or 'Blacks' I'm referring to Africans.

Before you start getting all specific and segregative, Africans = anyone with Black skin. If you wish to try and identify if you or anyone else has black skin, do this simple assessment:

"If you or they (person your trying to decipher as black) were to run down the street and grab some old ladies bag and there were loads of witnesses, how would those witnesses describe you/them to the Police?"

Now on the surface this is misleading right, because some mixed raced people would/could be described as black right? Now you see how misleading a stereotype can be....

Anyhoot I digress, back to the Chicken saga. Its a stereotype that has been with black people for a very long time, now although it does not necessarily paint black people in a bad light, it has been used as a subject of ridicule. Some large global well known food outlets have taken it upon themselves to 'target' the black market...nothing wrong with that I hear you say and I principle I agree, but then you watch an add like this:



Now I am a simple man, very simple in fact, but I cannot for the life of me understand what the "Awkward situation" was, from what I could see, fans of the Caribbean cricket team were cheering their team on and minding their own business. I could see no threatening behaviour towards the Aussie fan and no reason for the crowd to be 'pacified' with chicken... Am I missing something?

Then there is this:



Now...um...err... sorry, I'm totally unbiased with all of this, but this just took the absolute piss!

Ads like those above do not do anything for unity or peace amongst the races, young impressionable people watch the ad and automatically think its 'OK' to think or put across these type of views because if it managed to get on TV..it 'MUST' be 'OK'...*SMH*.

Anyhoot seems I've digressed somewhat again!

Right so I've been lucky enough to travel to different parts of the world and on my travels I always try to remain open minded but also keep a keen eye out for the details.

On my travels I've noticed, a majority of the fast food chicken outlets (branded and non branded) share a common trait. No its not that the Chicken is abused, or that the chicken offers very little nutritional value. No the thing I've noted to be in common in a majority of fast food chicken outlets is the geological origin of the person serving the chicken, they always seem to be of Asian decent. When I say 'Asian' in this instance I do NOT mean Eastern Asian..I mean Western, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, India...that part of Asia.

I noticed it in:

London
Luton
Leicester
Manchester
Birmingham
Portsmouth
Basingstoke

Chicago
Boston
Minnesota

Amsterdam
Paris
Barbados
St Lucia
Jamaica

No...really I did! I couldn't believe it.

Now the way I see it, Asian's must love chicken just as much as black people, because in truth a lot of Asian dishes are made with chicken. In fact Lamb and chicken are most common meats in Asian dishes. That coupled with the fact that most chicken shop/spots/ fast food outlets are manned by Asian's.....????

Obviously your sitting there thinking "Just because someone sells something doesn't mean they love it too, they may not even use/consume the thing they are selling". To which I will pause, then say "You are partly right, but, go and ask a drug dealer (preferable a cocaine/crack dealer) if they love Bolivia". You might be looking at the screen and wonder what the hell I'm on about now, so I'll explain:

A drug dealer, one who is pretty high up in the ranks, the 'importer' if you will, loves Bolivia, he may never have been there in his life! but he loves Bolivia. If you come between him and Bolivia, he will kill you for the love of Bolivia. This drug dealer doesn't even take drugs...he just sells them... Asian's Love Chicken!

I'm even going to go one step further! There are more Asian's in the world than black people, so even if only half the Asian population loved chicken...guess what, thats still more than the total number of black people that could...

This stereotype is nonsense!

I will continue to rant...

1.7 iRant: Origin of Nigger

This should be an open and shut case really, shouldn't actually be anything to talk about on this one at all...after all the word 'Nigger' doesn't actually exist.

There...done.

No but seriously, I thought I would have a look into the origin of the word Nigger, to see where/why it started. To my surprise, there isn't a reference for the term (well I couldn't find one). Now I know you will (you should) go and do a search straight away and then say "whats he on about, I found this you'll no doubt feel as if everything I've said is a load of cabbage and discredit the rest of the post in your mind?...

I say you'll do that, because I nearly did, until I re-read that wiki page

The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black".

This is the most important sentence I found on that page because it does two very important things:

1. Tries to fool you into believing the word Nigger actually has some genuine origin
2. Tries to stitch up the Spanish/Portugese for a word that is just the description of a colour in their language.

Ok lets take it back:

Negro is the Spanish/Portugese word that came from the Latin Nigr, which literally means 'black'...as in the colour, not 'black person', 'dirty black', 'filthy black', 'lazy black', just Black...as in the colour. If you still don't understand what I mean then every time you want to buy a garment that happens to be 'black' say Nigr instead.

See something so simple, but yet still somehow we have the word 'Nigger' in full circulation. Now as far as I know Latin is supposed to be the 'father/mother' of all European languages...? (Some historians will probe deeper still and argue that Egyptians gave birth to the verbal/written morality that became Latin and yada yada yada)...these may or may not be valid points but my issue is with the word 'Nigger' and so I don't feel I need to delve any further back *takes deep breath*..."Stay focused Simon"!

So, from Nigr comes Negro, this really should have been the end of it, because in truth English already had the noun 'Black' to describe...well...what we commonly know as 'Black' the colour. So I for the life of me cannot understand how we got from Negro to Nigger. Then again, the French seemed to adopt the world Negré from Negro and they already had the word 'Noir' to describe the colour 'black'...then in 1916 John Rolfe gave account of African Slaves labelling them 'Negars', which I imagine was his own inventive twist on Negro...hold on a minute, this is starting to look like the word Nigger was deliberately invented to be used as a derogative slur to be launched at black people...

iranted and exposed my own ignorance...*smh*