Appearance at Norm's

Norm has added a cricket memory of mine to his excellent series and if you so choose, you can read it here.

Tone-Deaf

God my last post was wishy washy and dull and boring. It's bloody hard to get the tone of this blogging thing right. You might have noticed that I am trying to tone down the swearing but all that comes out is fucking pathetic slightly old and wilted petal type writing.

Fuck the government and fuck their stupid arse-aching attempts to control our lives with piss-easy targets that all their chums in the lefty bloody academies and animal rights arsehole groups and socialist working-class-people-are-too-thick-to-eat-properly brigades applaud with media-hugging thunderous-fart talk. Fuck them.


Well, it feels better, but has it achieved anything?

And I'm not drunk, by the way, check the times on the posts. I'm not such a lightweight that I can go to the pub AND lose all sense of reason in just 10 minutes. I need to be sober to lose my reason.

End Bacon Now

Well, this is the message of the experts as any fule no by now. And, as Anita Anand said to a guest on last night's Drive show on Radio 5, "who are you to argue with peer reviewed science?". I presume the words "Sokal" and "hoax" mean little to her, but I'll defer to her point nonetheless.

The question is, apart from the simple "ok then" or "fuck off", what does one do? When I heard the news I did experience a moment of genuine panic and I can't help but think that this is partly the aim of such studies, however much they bleat about it actually being a good thing "because it helps us control our lives" or whatever. But while some people will, others, like myself, will continue to manage the risks and try to be careful with our diet.

The facts being "known" however, and I know DK has done a fine job of casting doubt on them, the _other_ question is - do I deserve medical treatment, should it become necessary, for refusing to follow the peer reviewed advice? Should I be regarded as a fool? I can't help thinking that this will happen, sooner or later, but, more, (oddly enough), food and drink we will expect people to control thoroughly but their sex lives we will not. No one, as far as I know, has suggested that people have less sex due to the risks, or that people should not receive treatment for sex-related conditions.

Why are we becoming collectively neurotic about food, obsessed with finger-pointing and threats of losing basic civil rights through it; but seem not to think that people can control what happens to them by having less sex?

I'm going down the pub, despite being exhorted to drink little or no alcohol. I won't be causing any fights, but I suppose I might fall over or something.

I probably won't come up with answers to my questions, but I might think about them a bit more.