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.

Animals are Panicking

I can't readily explain what it was that brought me back to blogging, unless it were boredom: it certainly was not a desire to explain or expand upon my political obsessions, though I intend to do that too. My assumptions are of a simple class, obtained through Freudian simplicities and back pedalled reasoning.

Did I ever discuss my favourite types of pornography?


Well, time and place my friends, time and place.

My political views are easy and reactionary: I don't see why government deigns to give me rights and why I should be grateful. I _do_ see why there is no other source of rights, though we've transmuted a post-holocaust set of aspirations via Ernest Bevin into a Platonic reality of some faintly sinister kind.

Nathelees, blogging is no reason for expounding on these ignorances, nor are ignorances reasons for blogging. No. The bloghaters, whisper if you dare, are right. We blog because we are frustrated and because we want to hear what we want to hear. Yes, alright, sometimes I read the Intelligent Person's Guardian (Matt, Stumbling &c) but mostly I read the nearest equivalents to the Mail, the Torygraph and the Times (though it's dispiritingly socially liberal these days, even unto its tv reviews helpfully pointing out which tv shows show homophobia and which don't, as if anyone reads a tv review to be told what to think about human sexuality).

By the way can I just take this opportunity to tell ALL tv reviewers the following:

I don't give a fuck for your views on abortion, Mrs Thatcher, Eisenhower, President Reagan, gay rights, religion, atheism, stem cell research, the internet, blogging, corruption, sex or murder.

You are hired to discuss whether x programme is good or not. Kindly stick to this remit or fuck off. We are not so utterly ignorant that we need political point scoring in the middle of so-called professional media criticism. So fuck off. Or give me your job.


Then again, if they did, you'd get stuff like this:

Castrovalva is a pointed satire on Thatcher's Britain (c all newspapers): the characters (who, interestingly, barely seem to know who they are in this nightmarescape) stumble over invented traditions, which appear to give a conservative gloss to reality but which in fact expose the hollow and false nature of conservative fantasies....


Er...no, actually, hang on. More like this:

Logopolis suggests that technology and "progress" (c Greenpeace) is but a fig leaf for universe threatening desires. It is wholly ironic that Logopolis, the mental maths paradise, resorts to flawed and, if you observe closely, cobwebbed technology to save the universe. The implication is clear. Only the natural mind is acceptable. Technology (ie carbon footprinted wasteage) is harmful.

Erm..no that's still not right. Wait a minute...er....


Um. Anyway.

By the way, academic twats, research does not "show" anything. It might "suggest" conclusions, but it does not "show" them. I learned that in GCSE History. Shame that graduate teachers are bedazzled by self interested twats waving bits of paper and telling them that x study of 4 children in Luton "shows" that y obtains when it might well do, but we just don't, actually, know for certain.

Huh. So much for blogging as a way of expanding the mind.