iRant: Personal Hygiene is not really 'Personal'

I have to be majorly careful not to just get into a real rage over this and just start aimlessly ranting for ranting sake. Actually...what are rants for, why shouldn't I just go off on one...? ...OK here it goes:

If I've been lucky enough to have you follow the blog (despite the hiatus) then I would like to hope you've read some of my previous posts and can appreciate my love of the English language and all its complexities. It is this love of the language that has lead me to this next rant, well that and the seemingly ignorant nature of some peoples hygienic routines.

Before I put my bread nife into the subject (The spelling of 'nife' is deliberate, go here, then you'll understand) I have to be completely clear about what I consider hygiene to be:

1. Have a bath/shower (the most basic of hygienic principles)
2. Brush your teeth
3. Wash your face
4. Wash your hands before and after toilet use
5. Rid your nose of mucus or bogey build up
6. Make sure your ear wax, stays in your ears!
7. Wash your hair at least twice a month (this is a bare minimum)

As you can see from the short list, I don't consider this subject to be overly complex and so the 7 simple steps above should see you well.

I wish that was the 'full stop' of this rant, alas...I have to go on.

I find it unacceptable to share any public space with people who have their own hygiene as a low priority. Unfortunately, the people of whom I speak have a very good point of argument on their side, in that...its call 'Personal Hygiene'.

Let us break down this terminology, to its finest ingredients ofcourse.

Personal = "Concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality", "particular to a given individual" or "intimately concerning a person's body or physical being"

Hygiene = "a condition promoting sanitary practices" or "the science concerned with the prevention of illness and maintenance of health"

Now the two definitions above have been pulled from the technological reinstatement of God = Google. Fortunately I tend to agree with all the definitions issued, the problem with this as I previously stated is it works in favour of the un-hygienic offenders. Now don't for a moment misunderstand me, I'm not particularly speaking about people who smell like Saturday night on a Monday morning commute, or individuals that have clearly worn the same t-shirt without washing it for over a week...I am speaking about the concept of 'Personal Hygiene'.

By definition (see above) it is nobodies business if you choose, for whatever reason, to not respect or abide by the 7 regions of hygiene I outlined above. Again this is what is wrong with language, because by the simple contents of its nature, personal hygiene is personal, you can't argue with that one bit, but its a shame that it can majorly affect someone else's life.

Now common sense suggests as soon as something that is personal begins to affect other parties, it becomes less personal and more public, especially in the public domain. I say that, but I also recently heard there isn't anything 'common' about common sense ... go figure.

So I guess it is inevitable that you or I, will be on the train or bus or tube and be subject to pungent, gut wrenching stank (Stank is used to describe a smell that is so bad today, that it qualifies as a past tense).

Despite my rant, there are genuine cases where a person's natural body odor is particularly...erm..'Strong', apparently its a science and so naturally Simple Simon did some research.

Causes of 'strong' body odor:

1. Diet! - Yep believe it or not spicy foods have been attributed to bad body odor. An excess of Coffee, Garlic, Cheese and spices can cause your natural odor to be, what some would describe as ...'sharp'.

2. Dirty clothes - No brainer really, if you got steamy in the t-shirt yesterday and todays hot and your wearing said t-shirt you have what I like to call 'compound stank'...you smell like the worst of yesterday and the worst of today.

3. Clean clothes dirty body - Now suprisingly you can get away with this for short periods of time, BUT if the temperature rises you will be exposed.

4. Medication - Yes medication! certain anti-biotics can trigger unpleasant smell on a person.

Now outside of the above, my most interesting finding was this:

"Sweat itself is virtually odorless to humans; it is the rapid multiplication of bacteria in the presence of sweat and what they do (break sweat down into acids) that eventually causes the unpleasant smell."

That goes to say that sweat literally doesn't 'stink' (please do not mistake that for not having a smell entirely...there is a difference).

Anyhow...I'd like to let as many people that I can know, that Personal Hygiene ...really isn't personal at all...

iRant because sometimes I just need to get it off my chest!

iRant: This language I love

I'm proud of the fact that I've stayed away from this rant for so long, simply because it is without a doubt the most f'ing annoying subject in my life at any one time. Every reminder, launches me into a fury that is perfectly replicated every. Single. Time.

I can't help it, I know it seems strange to be able to positively identify a flaw but then continue to perfectly replicate it time and time again, in fact you'd be forgiven for considering it 'retarded' because in short...it is. Fortunately I'm not asking for your understanding...I'd just like you to hear me out.


Let there be no misunderstanding here, I'm not suggesting this rant is in anyway exclusive, its not a new line of thought or in any way a break through. I'm sure it has been acknowledged before... For you to fully see where I'm coming from with this rant I'll need you to take a journey with me...back to my school days!

-Back Ground-

Simple Simon is simple, has always been, however Simple Simon...tries very hard to analyse the details because he knows he's 'simple'. Due to this attention to details I was decent at school, not overly studious (short attention span) but when I put my mind to it, I produced results.



-Scene 1 act 1-
Setting - Secondary school, Set 2 English class Yr 10 (tenth grade). Simple Simon sits at the back of the class.

Teacher: "Class, today we are not going to read from any books, or reconstruct any poems or text. I thought we'll have an improv day...I'll start on a subject area and we'll see where we end up.

Class: "Yeeeeeessss!" [begin to get a little rowdy]

Teacher: "OK class calm down, lets start with this, a quick fire spelling test, I'll call a person and tell them to spell a word. It will be easy words, no pressure its just for fun." "Martin spell 'Castor'"

Martin stands up and says "C.A.S.T.O.R"

Teacher: "Very good" "Spencer spell 'Spill'"

Spencer stands up and says "S.P.I.L.L"

Teacher: "Excellent! Simon spell 'Knife'"

Now before I continue I have to let you know, that I did it on purpose. [Right continue]

I stand up and say "N.I.F.E", everyone in the class goes quiet and there is one child in the middle row who can't help but laugh out loud. The teacher quickly says

Teacher: "Ruben stop laughing, its an easy mistake to make. Simon, you have made a mistake, care to try the word again?"

I said "Sure Miss, N.I.F.E. I didn't spell the word incorrectly thats how its supposed to be spelt."

Teacher: "Now now Simon, you know the word is K.N.I.F.E, there is a silent 'K'"

She should never had said that!

Simon: "Miss about this silent 'K' what is the point in it, if its silent why bother putting it into the spelling, I mean imagine how many people have spelt a word correctly only to be told its incorrect because of some silent letter that has no presence in the verbal morality, I mean its not as if we spell each word we utter... so whats the point?"

Now as you can imagine the teacher is stunned, that kid that thought my spelling was funny is now silenced and the classroom has now turned into my army...

Teacher: "Simon, just because something does not announce its presence or stand out so you take heed of it, does not mean it does not exist or you shouldn't respect it. Take gravity or air for example, you've never seen either of those before, yet you respect their existence"

Can anyone say "Power Shift!". My army all turned and looked to see what comeback I would issue to such an eloquent display of reasoning. I won't put up a front she would have won many battles with that one submission, but she made a fatal mistake...she brought Science to an English lesson and Science is about the details ... what is Simple Simon good with?

So I say: "Miss, you make a very valid point with regards to 'something' not having to announce its presence in order to be respected or acknowledged and on that point I concede, however, gravity and air have very discrete ways of letting you know when they are 'not' present, namely you float up without gravity and you can't breath without air. So in a funny way if your on the ground and your breathing, they have both respectively announced their presence... This is where the silent letter fiasco falls flat on its face, because there is no rhyme, reason or rule for when a silent letter is to be utilised. I mean, I could literally say my name is to be spelt P.s.y.m.o.n and every time you spell it S.i.m.o.n I would be well within my rights to tell you your wrong...it just doesn't make any sense. Whats worst Miss, is we have always been taught that if a word is difficult to spell we should try to spell it phonetically, the word 'Phonetic' is a rouse in itself because my immediate attempt at spelling it would be F.O.N.E.T.I.C. How do we know that we shouldn't use phonetics for words with silent letters, better still how are we supposed to know a word has a silent letter if its silent? Miss, way back in history I'm sure the spoken word came before the written, so it stands to reason that words written would have been phonetically identical to the spoken version, so where or when did the inclusion of all this silent letter mockery occur?"

Remember that power shift I mentioned earlier? Completely neutralised.

The rest of the class looked to the teacher for answers she could not provide. About a week later I was moved to Set 1 English...I'm not quite sure why...

Looking back on that episode and knowing what I know now (I actually know some teachers) I must have been a difficult pupil. I say that because teachers teach a syllabus and the syllabus is often f@&%rey, the teachers have little to do with the origin of the content, they are just the masters of the delivery, much like Milli Vanilli in the late 80's/90's.

So fast forward a couple decades and we now have a boundless dictionary, some smart alec tried to claim we had over a 1million words to the English language back in June 2009. The response to the claim was mixed and it wasn't decided either way, although I take comfort in the following quote

The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.

Now in plain English, the above quote just means, 'We know where English started, but it has no perceived end'. This is both an interesting and dangerous concept (the danger only comes for the connoisseurs of language). Languages outside of English were bounded, that is, they had a finite number of words that made up their diction. This has its advantages and disadvantages in my opinion.

Advantages

1. The language would potentially be less open to extremely broad interpretations (written)
2. Words could possibly be more meaningful....?
3. There is a high probability that the mockery that is the 'silent' letter would not exist.


Disadvantages

1. Language could be less expressive
2. Concepts explored by the use of extensive vocab could be less likely [not sure about this one]
3. We could lose amusing institutions such as sarcasm

Whether good or bad, there is one thing that is definitely true and that is, the growth of the English language has forced the grow of others. In some cases its been a brute force attack, example:

Words/vehicles such as Car and Aeroplane have only been in wide circulation in the last 100 years. At introduction they would have been available to a select few, but gradually over time and as they became more affordable they were pushed to the masses.

So take your mind to a small village in Africa, the villagers have seen these Aeroplanes flying overhead, they've never been in one, they have never seen one up close, but they guess it must have someone controlling it. They have no real name for it, because generally speaking 'transport' is a finite term that is proceeded by a type e.g air transport, land transport, sea transport. For the African language in question this is not an issue, after all, its transport that is in the air on the ground or on the sea. However these terms will not satisfy English, simply because:

Hot air balloons
Blimps
Aeroplanes
Helicopters
Fighter Jets

are all modes of air transport but have very different methods of completing the same task ('ish' work with me here).

Anyway, as time progresses and the reality of the plane that used to fly over the village comes closer to home (relatives coming from far on planes), the language could quite possibly need to include the new terms above, the problem is, there are no literal translations for the terms and so they get added to the language as is..and hence the language of the village/nation has grown by 5 'new' types of air transport. Multiply this by every 'new' invention made and you potentially have a language littered with words that have no real place/meaning in the language they are being used in. Face it, air transport is air transport, its literally transport that travels in the air, the intricacies are not necessary (IMO).

The danger with this is, English is becoming a widely spoken language worldwide and with this, increasing numbers of youth are not learning their mother tongue or are not learning it properly. Thus bringing about the death of languages, that is not that the language doesn't exist anymore, but the number of fluent speakers is dwindling...


And so to come full circle, why the heck do we have silent letters in words!?! My simple brain cannot justify it....aaarrrrgggggghhhh it annoys me so much, if I had it my way:

Knife = Nife
Cycle = Si-kul
Psycho = Si-co
Elephant = Elefant
xylophone = Zi-lofone

Done...simple.


As if the silent letter saga wasn't enough you also have words that sound the same but are spelt differently:

Might, mite.
Light, lite.
Weight, wait.
Waste, waist.

How are you to know which is right and when? (Imagine you were new to the language)

Oh this language I love...

iRant: You mean you didn't cater for me?

I might have lied in my last post This language I love, not about whether I love the language or not, but about it being the single most annoying thing at any one time. I say that because I remembered this next rant worthy subject and realised it is one of my pet peeves.

This is bound to ruffle a few feathers...

Scenario 1

Your out on the town, having a good time on a budget, your not loaded, but your not on the poverty line (although your ever mindful of its presence). It gets to just gone midnight and your about to go onto the night club after perusing the local bars, you check your pockets, no cash, you check your wallet only a tenner left. You do the smart thing and go to the cash point (ATM).

You stick your card in, mess up the pin entry the first time then get the right combination of numbers on the second go, you retrieve your card from the machine and wait patiently for your cash to be dispensed.

Some 15 seconds later, proof of your last 28 days of labour materialise as crisp notes breathe the city air. You check the sum discretely, ensuring the exact amount requested is actually accounted for.

You fold the notes neatly and slide them into your wallet as you place your card back into its 'place'. Just as you fold the wallet and put it into your pocket you hear a faint sound, it sounded like somebody spoke, in fact you know it was a persons voice, you even recall the words uttered "Got any spare change". You look left and right, but you can't see anybody, you look skyward and again, nobody. "Excuse me, got any spare change" you look down and there is a person bundled in blankets with an outstretched cup and a sympathetic facial expression.

Scenario 2

You walk past the local youth gang and enter the local sweet shop, you ask the 'guvna' for a 20 pack of your favourite cancer sticks. Mr Patel/Singh/Shah grabs your selected product off the shelf behind him, 'tots' you up and asks for "£4.50 please". You pay the man, wish him a good day and set off on your way. You haven't had a cigarette in the last 5 hours, just finished eating and could well do with one, so you unwrapped the WMD's as you walk to the shop exit.

As you leave the shop your first cigarette goes into your mouth and you light it up. You pass the local youth gang again, just as you get 2 steps past them you hear "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?".

The Analysis

The above are examples of a daily occurrence. Most people have experienced either of the scenarios or at least been witness to them.
Now I know these two scenarios are not high up on the agenda as far as 'critical' issues are concerned and I'm not even going to try and argue that they are. I would however like to ask 'why in Jesus' [disclaimer] do people think that its ever appropriate to ask "do you have a spare?".

No...seriously, let us explore this flawed concept.

Deconstruction of scenario 1.

The person in the blankets has strategically positioned themselves by the cash dispensing machine, note this position, because the strategy attached to it is of paramount importance. Do not, for one minute think that being close to an electronic device such as an ATM could possibly afford one who is in its proximity extra warmth, because most 'off premises' ATM's are mounted onto solid walls with all the electronic 'gizmundo-try' neatly tucked behind the wall. So no, the person is not there for the warmth.

The person is not working as part of some community initiative to help crack down on ATM robberies, the person is not part of an undercover S.W.A.T team, who has a number of undercover colleagues in the local area (that is actually a good idea....might suggest it).

No ladies and gentlemen, this individual is attempting to use your own guilt against you, see you've just withdrawn money, so there is no way you can honestly say you don't have any (you know that is your usual excuse, its OK, you are not alone). So now you have a 'Mexican stand off', if you have no intention of giving the person any money, thats fine, but how to translate that becomes your problem. Can you see how this person has added extra stress to your evening?


Deconstruction of scenario 2.

There is an element of danger to this scenario, primarily because it involves the 'local mob' so to speak. You see, lying to the local youth, may not present any trouble today, or even tomorrow, but it could be a contributory factor to some mishaps at a later date.

Again, like the person in scenario 1, the positioning of the mob is very strategic, its even well thought out to a degree. You see what you have to appreciate is these guys (and girls) are gathered at a point where they can clearly see the local shop and the pathway that leads to it, giving a fantastic view of what you have just bought!

The problem now comes because, you walked passed the gathered mass and they saw your hands were empty, they saw you walking into the shop, they saw you leave the shop, they saw you open that fresh box of cigarettes! So now if you deny having any, you've created a negative atmosphere, you also have to remember the 'mob' is local...they know where you live! Again they are using your guilt against you.


The Rant (Please excuse the profanity)

I used to be plagued by the above scenarios. The scenario's above are not one's that I have necessarily been through myself (I don't smoke), but they both hold true the method of using your own guilt against you. I literally spent years trying to avoid any of the two above scenario's or at least the possible confrontation they could be the catalyst to.

I would pretend to be on the phone whilst at the ATM so as not 'hear' the request for 'spare change' or I would advise that one puts their newly purchased goods in their pockets. Some might call it sheepish, cowardly even, I consider it making the ultimate peace and trying to get on as normal.

That was until I really sat down and thought about it one day. When I got to the mathematics of the situation I decided I no longer had to use any avoidance tactics.

Getting back at the guilt pushers

Person in blankets: "Excuse me, have you got any spare change"

Simple Simon: *Looks in pocket, pulls out all the loose change, counts it, then says* "Nope, I left my house with exactly £4.26 and I still have £4.26" *Replaces change and continues on his way*

Now I know the immediate reaction to this is going to be a mixture of laughter and possibly some outrage, but let us remain focused, the entire setup of the scenario
is designed to f%£k with your conscience.

Yes we know that not everyone is fortunate, yes we know that we should try to help and support those that are less fortunate, if I'm not mistaken all religious scriptures have some passage about helping the 'needy'. I just don't recall any scripture saying the 'needy' were authorised to use tactics to inveigle you into helping them.

My local 'ATM minder' cottoned on to my quick whit and devised a plan to thwart me, he changed the order of his words in his question from

"Excuse me, have you got any spare change"

to

"Excuse me, have you got any change you can spare"

Very clever 'Mr ATM minder', but the answer is still "NO". Because in truth, lets face it, you work 35+hrs a week for 4weeks, then you get a payslip, on the payslip the government openly brandish the fact that they've seen your money before you have and they have taken their share, before you've even seen your money. They then give you whats left, problem is the amount before deductions is about 1k more than what your left with, your local hospital is rated worst in the country and the police take 20mins to respond to any emergency call. Do you see any 'spare change' or 'change to spare' in that formula? I can't.


I'm not forgetting the 'spare cigarette' scenario either.

Mob member: "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?"

Simple Simon: *Opens box, counts cigarettes, 19 remaining + one in mouth = 20* "Nope, I went into the shop without any, I asked the shop keeper for a box of 20, he gave me this box, I gave him £4.50".

I'm sorry but where do people get off? You don't walk into a shop and say "Could I have a 20box of B&H and 1 spare please" or "Could I have a pack of cigarettes and all the spares you can afford to give me?" It's just bullshit, you know what, I'm even going to suggest it has something to do with the English language and its insincerity, because "Excuse me mate, have you got a spare cigarette?" is basically saying, "You've paid your hard earned money for cancer sticks, so I can come and ponce one off you for free" f%$king cheek!

Funny thing is, ever the businessman, the local shop keeper has now cottoned on to this 'spare' phenomenon that has gripped the nation. Apparently you are now able to buy a 'single'. For those who are not in the know a 'single' is 1 cigarette out of a box, this solitary cigarette is sold for about 25p, not a lot in single terms. Its only when you multiply that 25p by 20 (the contents of a medium sized box of cigarettes) that you come to realise the corner shop owner has identified a market and is making 50p per box extra from it...very clever.

This can been considered a community service, because if you are not as brazen as Simple Simon, you could simply assert "You may buy a 'single' from the local shop" to your local youth gang. They are fully aware of this fact and so it may serve you well to give them the required 25p for said single. However be warned, you are setting your self up for this to be a regular occurrence, or at least as regularly as you pass the local youth gang.

Personally, I'd tell these people to take a running jump!

No I didn't cater for you! What have you done for me lately?

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...