Happy Gluttonous Easter

Happy Easter. In honor of Easter, let's take a look at some Easter candy ingestion statistics from the UK and try to figure out what in the world is going on over there.

According to an article by those fine folks across the pond over there at The Telegraph, a mystery shopping company (whatever the heck that is) took a poll and found out that "Children will indulge in an average of more than two-and-a-half kilograms of chocolate over the Easter holiday." Wait. Two and a half kilograms?!

A kilogram is around 2.2 pounds. Thus, 2.5 kilograms would be the equivalent of 5.5 POUNDS. Of chocolate? Eaten?! By children?! (I'm pretty sure that somewhere in here there's some sort of a joke about the stereotypical Brit with bad teeth, I'm just a little unsure of how to phrase it, so that's going to have to do.)

The article goes on to state that "...a typical 200g Easter egg has 990 calories and 50 grams of fat, with youngsters aged 10-14 eating an average of 13, many first thing on Easter Sunday." Wait a minute here. A 200 gram chocolate Easter egg is "typical" for those folks? How many grams in a pound? (Let's see....four quarts in a gallon...two cups in a pint...takes one to know one....what's good for the goose....what was the question?) 1 pound = 453.59237 grams. Thus, 200 grams would be a little bit less than half a pound. That's TYPICAL?!?!

This cannot possibly be correct, can it? And these kids are eating thirteen of those eggs? Well, of course they are, considering that they're eating 5-1/2 pounds of chocolate. That would add up to thirteen of them. How can that be? Why are the Brits buying their kids so much freaking chocolate for Easter? Are they trying to find one thing that they can out-do the US at? How about they pick something else? Something not quite so gluttonous? Or something that could possibly be attained. Trying to out-do the United States at overeating would be the equivalent of trying to out-do Tiger Woods at cocktail waitress banging. It's (sadly) just not going to happen. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

The article says that "...the 15 to 19 age group weighs in with 11 (eggs) each" but "the 40 to 59-year-olds and over-75s have the lowest consumption, with an average of just one." So, these folks are buying pounds and pounds of chocolate for their kids, but limiting their own egg consumption to just one? That seems...counterintuitive at best. They give their kids tons of chocolate eggs, but consume the absolute minimum themselves. I'm still noodling through why this would be. Soft, soft headed individuals is what I'm guessing. Whatever the answer, it certainly isn't rooted in anything rational or justifiable.

We also learn that "Seven out of 10 parents have adopted the American tradition of holding a 'hunt the Easter egg' event for their children." First of all, it's an Easter egg hunt. If you're going to adopt it, at least call it by its given name. Second, we're absolutely not hunting for half pound chocolate eggs. The outdoor Easter egg hunts that I participated in as a small child involved real eggs! They were hard-boiled (because it would have just been weird otherwise) and dyed different colors, but they were real eggs. In addition to the real eggs, there were also those colored plastic eggs that you could put like ONE tiny chocolate egg inside of. Again, if you're going to adopt something, try to keep our wacky ways in tact, would you? Thanks.

I don't know what to think about all of this (other than next year right before Easter, it might be time for me to invest some money by buying some sort of confectionery stocks or glucose meters). Five an a half pounds of chocolate in one day. Even when I was a little kid and that would have sounded like an appealing event to partake in, I highly doubt I could have done it without some sort of reversal of fortune occurring before the end of the day.

Private Public Safety Gone Too Far

I don't use the word stupid very often. I have no problem with other words which indicate stupidity, such as moron (my personal favorite) and, on occasion, idiotic. I'm also a big fan of the word ridiculous. But for some reason, stupid just seems a little harsh to me. That being said, I have just read what might be one of the stupidest ideas that has ever popped into the head of a human being (or animal, for that matter, and animals have been known to eat their own feces, so that should give you a measuring stick for how stupid I think this really it).

Let's hop on over across the pond to Macclesfield, Cheshire (that's in England). It is there that the fine folks at Mail Online bring us the tale of "...an initiative called Operation Golden which aims to slash burglary rates." Now, I don't know what the burglary rates are in Macclesfield, but I highly doubt that they're high enough to implement something this stupid. And that's because it's very difficult to justify stupidity to begin with.

Here's how Operation Golden works: Officers have begun testing windows and doors at night as part of a campaign to increase home security." Hmm. Now, I admit I find that concept odd. I understand wanting to increase home security. That seems like a reasonable idea. But I don't know how the window and door testing is going to help. What's that? There's more? Oh, yeah. There is.

"If they find one open, they are under orders to knock on the door and drag sleepy residents from their beds and lecture them." Um, what now?

I am admittedly completely unfamiliar with the gun laws in England. I know y'all are a bit knife-y over there, but I don't know how shoot-y things get. See, over here in the US, there are quite a few of us who exercise our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And if my door gets knocked on in the middle of the night or I hear someone messing with my windows in the middle of the night, I'm going to exercise that 2nd Amendment right faster than anyone is going to be able to explain to me that they're the police and they're just doing a little safety check.

According to a one Inspector Gareth Woods (he's the chap who is in charge of this lunacy), "He admitted that some residents will not be happy about the wake-up call, but said: 'If we're told to get lost then that's a risk we take." It's not so much the getting told off that would be the risk I'd be worried about if I were you folks. It's the getting shot part that would concern me.

"Police say their actions are necessary as almost 40 per cent of all burglars gain access through an unsecured window or door." I can imagine. But I'm here to tell you that although only 40 percent of burglars gain their access through the windows or doors that are unsecured, 100 percent of that 40 percent would be shot at here at here at my walled off compound.

Here's my question (well, aside from the one about why anyone would think that this is a good idea): How is this not trespassing? If you're wandering about the perimeter of my home and you're trying to open my doors and trying to open my windows, how are you not trespassing? Is trespassing only something that exists in the United States? I don't think that it is. So how is this justified? Sadly, the article does not say. But it does say that "Most reasonable people will say thanks for letting them know and be grateful." Ummm, I don't think that they will. That, of course, is provided that they are, in fact, "reasonable people". Reasonable people are not going to be grateful that someone is sneaking around outside of their house and seeing if they can get in. No, if the doorbell is rang at 2 in the morning and it's a cop standing there who begins to lecture them on the safety of their own home, reasonable people are going to flip out! That's what reasonable people are going to do. It's the numb nuts who are going to thank these officers for attempting to break into their home. What is wrong with people?

While I can appreciate the whole wanting to educate the public on keeping their home safe, I'm thinking this goes a bit too far. After all, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you leave your home unlocked, it's reasonable to think that a burglar might try to get in and steal your stuff. A reasonable person (see the paragraph above) would realize this and would lock their home. If your home is unlocked and someone steals your stuff, hey, live and learn, I suppose.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? I'm thinking plenty. Plenty could go wrong. It's only a matter of time before an officer is shot or stabbed or whatever it is that you folks over there in England do to protect your family and your belongings from an uninvited and intrusive stranger in the middle of the night. It won't end well. It won't end well because it's stupid.

If you're reading this and you happen to live over there, please tell me what in the world is going on. I'm so confused that something so idiotic would ever be implemented that I feel as if I must be missing part of the story. I'm terrified that I'm not, but I'm hoping that I am.

Extracurricular Activites of a UK Mayor

What in the world is wrong with some of you people? Seriously. It's a serious question. What is wrong with you? There is clearly something wrong with some of you, otherwise y'all wouldn't be pulling some of the stunts that you're pulling. I mean, I understand the need to get laid. (Believe me, I understand!) But I don't understand what you guys don't understand about going out and getting a hooker or a whore or something to accomplish that. And the part that I don't understand is why you don't do it if your other alternative to getting yourself off is to sneak into people's homes and relieve your sexual tensions on their undergarments. But that's only when you're not busy fulfilling your duties as mayor. Wait. As what now?

Correct. As mayor. It would seem that over there across the pond in Lancashire (that's in North West England) and according to the Lancashire Telegraph, "The mayor of a Lancashire village" was caught "sneaking into bedrooms to steal and violate women’s underwear". Really? As mayor? I hear of political sex scandals in this country every other day at least. Granted, Mayor isn't exactly Governor or Senator or anything like that, but I'm sure that there's still some scandal that's out there to be had that doesn't involve all of the stealing and certainly doesn't involve all of the violating. I'm sure of it.

But this guy, apparently, was not. Accoding to the article in the Lancashire Telegraph, "Church-going Ian Stafford, 59, was a highly respected member of the community and Mayor of Preesall, near Fleetwood, before his “bluntly revolting” behaviour was uncovered". I see. Was it really necessary to put in there that he was "church going"? I don't think that it was. But if it was, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to make people hate him more or less? Because it really makes me hate him more. Much more. Pig. But I digress. What does this sort of individual look like, you may be wondering? He looks exactly like you're think he looks. Behold!

Seriously. Tell me that if you were just shown that picture and you knew nothing of that man's history and you were given a choice of whether he was a mayor, a handyman or an ejaculating underwear thief, which one would you choose? The EUT, of course you would!

But perhaps being mayor over there in Lancashire doesn't carry the same clout or, at the very least, the same paycheck that it does over here in the US because Stafford was described as "A part-time handyman and gardener" and "had been employed for years by some of his victims who trusted him with keys to their homes." See, I just can't picture a mayor in the States as being someone's gardener. I picture pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom (the gayest looking straight man I have ever seen), the mayor of San Francisco and I can't see him doing his own gardening, let alone someone else's. Thank God that I also can't picture him doing unspeakable acts in other women's underwear drawers, either.

The pervert (I don't have to use "alleged" because he was convicted) was caught in his own insidious acts when one of the homeowners who had been violated "became suspicious" (oh, do you think?!) and set up hidden cameras. That was when Pervert Stafford was observed to be "in the bedroom naked from the waste(sp) down acting out his fantasy". Eww. Eww. And EWWW!!!

The homeowner (likely after multiple vomiting sessions) then took the evidence (which contained 14 minutes of this guy doing his thing) to the police. When they searched Pervy McJacksalot's home "...officers found stolen underwear which were marked with the women’s names on them." Of course. Because he wouldn't want to get them confused or mixed up or anything. No, that would be weird. Whatever. Freak.

I think that my favorite part of this account is where the article describe that "After hobbling into court using a walking stick, past his victims in the public gallery, his jaw dropped as he was sent down by Judge Heather Lloyd, who told him his actions were “bluntly revolting”. Oh, spare me. A walking stick?! (That's cutesy English talk for "a cane", I have the feeling.) Did the pervert have his walking stick (not to be confused with "whacking his stick") with him when he was sneaking into women's bedrooms and getting friendly with their undergarments? I'm not thinking that he did! If only judges in the US would tell people like this that they and their actions are both "bluntly revolting". That's pretty awesome.

The judge further told the sicko "To masturbate into a woman’s underwear and place it back in the drawer, repeatedly, as seen in the DVD, as you have done in other homes is bluntly revolting and the impact on your victims is high.” Why yes! Yes, it is! It is in all cases! It's bluntly revolting with an extremely high impact! Two years in jail is what this guy got? Good! I hope that he experiences some of this bluntly revolting behavior from some of his fellow inmates whilst he's serving away his time.