Underthinking Sunscreen

So, I am currently thinking 3 a week. Monday-Wednesday-Friday, but we will see how we go.

So today I was reading about a young lad who suffered 2nd degree burns on his shoulders. The first thing that struck my attention was this kid was named Angus Pattie, so I presumed it was a story about a man who burnt his meat patty on the Barbecue and to make the story out of it he gave the patty a name. Because that is my understanding of how journalism works, personalize the story.

Oh No. Not Angus! He was my favourite.

Then I thought well hang on a minute Angus is a type of cow, so the media were just alerting people to the danger of burning prime beef patties, because the price of meat and milk and stuff going through the roof.

"It's just sickening that a solo mother of 8 can't afford to eat Prime beef every meal of the day in this country, and to top it off it burns more easily."

But no that wasn't the case, in best case of giving a child an apt name since Alden Cockburn the world famous Urologist.....

.... a kid who had used the Cancer society approved sunscreen had received 2nd degree burns (or got cooked, get it Angus Pattie got cooked) after allegedly spending 1 hour in the sun.

"What are you doing in there, Angus?"
"NOTHING MUM, JUST SUNBATHING"

I actually believe he was in the sun, and sorry if offended Angus. But what is the cancer society putting their name all over the worst sunscreen that we have? (again allegedly, I have heard from other people aside this story though, that this is the case).
Is the cancer society president an vampire (a real one, not one of those twilight fags), and figures if he can't go in the sun no one else should too, therefore if they think they are using the best sunscreen and still getting burnt, then they should just stay inside??

Head of Cancer society.

Surely if you are the Cancer Society, you should be only lending your name to products you know will protect people using them. So people can say the Cancer society approves it, it must be good.
Did they test it? When did they test it?

"Yeah, your not burnt at all, this stuff totally works"

I mean that was always my presumption. Cancer society says this stuff is good, and they also say the best protection is to stay out of the sun, so this stuff must be incredible, like wearing shade.

Bill (middle) had forgot to put the shade on his face.

I am not sure why the Cancer society would put their name on an inferior product, (I am basing that on the story, where the pharmacist refuses to stock it because it is overrepresented in complaints). Is it to do with price, because surely its better to have people pay more and know they are covered, rather then save money but only think they are covered and take more risks, not wearing t-shirts or seeking shade?

If you want my recommendation, use the sunscreen that people use to write on themselves with, if it can leave skin underneath pasty white, while the rest burns to a crisp, it must be good!

"I wished they had used Cancer society sunscreen then I wouldn't have this burnt into my back"

Underthinking Food Labels

What the s**t Azzy! Is what you are all saying right now. You haven't posted in over 2 months and now you want us to just return and read your blog?
The simple answer is Yes, I know it will take a while to restore the good faith of my readers but I will attempt to start blogging regularly again in the hope to help you pass the dreary work day. Hopefully my two month absence coincided with you sunning yourself in the South Island, and relearning how to swim in the North Island.

"Yeah, just off to the Boxing day sale in Taranaki and you?"

What have I been doing, well numerous things

Trying to eradicate Hippies. (apparently I have put on weight and look slightly cartoony)

I went to Taiwan to attend a Chinese Wedding

.and ended up working on a tea plantation

And Misc other things. So why now, why return to my platform of rage against the underthinkers. Well I was watching the news the other day and I saw an item regarding a plan to place labels on soft drink to indicate to people how much exercise they would have to do to work off the calories in the drink.

Stupid special on 2.25 litre coke, now I have to do this All women's aerobics class.

This is all well and good but like most academics in their ivory towers they have managed to completely oversimplify the situation. (Incidentally I am referring to some one in an ivory tower, as an unworldly dreamer, as opposed to the poor princess that gets named Moonchild by that idiot Sebastian.)
All they did was take the calories in the drink and then calculated what sort of exercise would be required to burn them off.

So What...

Good question world famous musician Pink, I am glad you raised it. It is my understanding that doing anything burns calories.

According to most Scientician's a smile burns 2 calories.

Sure this isn't enough to burn the 141 calories in a can of coke, but it is a start, using this calculator. I discovered just sitting for 30 mins burns 43 calories, so if I just sit for 1.5 hours I have burnt off the can of coke.
The only relevance the 1 hour running for a can of coke, the academics has come up with, is if you are a corpse, who for some reason or another feed a can of coke, and were then re-animated and needed to burn it off.

Must burn off Coke.

If you are like 99.9% of my readership and you are alive, you are burning calories just by your mere existence.
The only other way this equation works is if they start with the assumption people are eating exactly the right amount of calories to cover basic bodily functions every day and that can of coke was on top, in which case you would have to add on the hour run. But how many people are living their lives on such precipice?

Careful, just 3 ml of tea, otherwise I am over for the day.

Now I am not saying that drinking Fizzy isn't bad for you, I am just saying that food label is kind of pointless, and oversimplifies the situation quite dramatically.
I mean why not put these labels on all foods not just unhealthy ones? There is a 105 calories in a Banana.

Hmmm if I eat all these Bananas, I will have to run for 4 hours, better stick to the Coke.

The difference is of course, in unhealthy foods the calories are unbalanced compared to the amount the food actually fills you up, meaning you will eat more and take in more calories than you require.

Upshot is if you want to lose weight remember to keep the following equation in the negatives.

Calories in - Calories out

I think I forgot to carry the 1.

Underthinking Racist Caddies

Where have I been? I have been trying to liberate the town centre from hippies. Unfortunately I am a pacifist and hippies while unemployed and smelly seem to have a encyclopaedic knowledge of NZ legal system and have managed to find loopholes that let them live rent free in the Octagon.

The current US Supreme court justices circa 1970.

Seriously do they just discuss legislation during their drum circles? But enough about hippies I am trying to wean myself off talking to them, due to their ability to constantly talk in circles, their conversations last forever.

This hippy died when his wife tried to ask him if he wanted coffee, and he just kept responding I am the 99% and corporate greed. Incidentally his wife never did find out if he wanted that coffee.

What has perked my interest today is this story pretty much is what it boils down to his Tiger Woods ex-caddy (read professional bag carrier) Steve Williams ...

I am currently on minimum wage + tips, if this was a set of golf clubs I would be on 10% of millions of dollars.  I made a poor choice.

...said he when awarded the prize for best caddy celebration that ''It was my aim to shove it up that black arsehole.''
Now I know what you are thinking amateur proctology is not the best reason to win an award.

"Seriously I thought you were kidding, I could have lived with an Oscar, but a Golden Globe!"

But apparently people are upset at the racist comment, that I have somehow missed, I know he referred to it as black, but that's not racist. Its not discriminating Tiger woods for the colour of his butt, and remember we are talking about golf, where some people probably would have discriminating Tiger for the colour of his butt in years gone by.

I am looking at you Augusta.

Its not the cleverest or most witty line in history, but bearing in mind what Steve Williams does in his spare time....

A regular culture vulture.

.. it was probably the best he could come up with, and it certainly wasn't racist.

If I told you to go get the white guy for an interview, I am not being racist, I am being informative

*Note I am aware in this picture I could have said guy with lanyard or watch. But lets presume I just knew there were two guys one black, one white who were wearing the same t-shirt, but had no idea about the number of accessories they had.

I fear that we are becoming too sensitive in this day and age, just referencing someone's skin colour isn't racist. If I attribute traits to someone because of their skin colour then I am being racist.

However if I reference someone's skin colour and you call me a racist for doing so, then I can't help but think you have automatically attached negative stereotypes to that skin colour making you the racist one.

Also before I leave I want to tell you about my 6th form English class we were asked to cast "The Crucible" and when it came to the ministers slave from Barbados, we all thought Whoopi Goldberg would be a good choice. We were told that was just stereotyping, by our English teacher, however he didn't bat an eyelid when we were going through old actors to play the elderly minister

Starring Justin Bieber as the 70 year minster, because we don't stereotype in this class.