Tag: Stupid people

What Price The Big Day?

Good Stuff, Men & Women

This story got me nodding my head in agreement.

One couple ditched their plans for a conventional wedding and instead jetted off on a month-long honeymoon.  Hannah Bird and Charlie Camper, both 26, had originally budgeted £30,000 for their big day.  However, the pair from Burnham-on-Sea soon realized the huge sum would be blown on just one day and could instead be used to make more memories exploring the world. 

So they did just that:  offering their guests supermarket cup cakes instead of buying an expensive wedding cake, got the bride a free (i.e. secondhand) wedding dress and offered their guests a buffet (“grazing table”) instead of the traditional sit-down meal.  As for the venue:  they booked a woodland retreat for a whole weekend’s festivities — which ordinarily would strike some as excessive — but reduced the cost by charging their guests sixty quid, in lieu of wedding presents.  Which makes a great deal of sense, by the way:  it may sound tacky, but from a guest’s point of view, where are you going to get a weekend getaway for only sixty bucks?  A bargain for everybody, and guests wouldn’t have to mess with buying presents into the bargain.

I never bought in to the wedding-industrial complex;  it always seemed to me a cynical exercise in gyno-centric excess — the idea that a girl somehow “deserves” to have a Special Day wherein she’s the absolute center of attention.  What bollocks.  And this is especially true when one looks at the statistics and realizes that the chances of said nuptials actually producing a long and happy relationship are vanishingly small.

I have no problem with the bride’s parents paying lots of money for the occasion, by the way — it’s their money to do with what they wish, and as long as they don’t bankrupt themselves (a distressingly-common occurrence), why not?  But as with the couple in the above story, it makes so much more sense to take the money that would have been blown on fripperies such as massive flower bouquets and a one-day-use dress, and spend it instead on something worthwhile to the couple, rather than just feeding the bride’s giant ego or need for self-aggrandizement.

I actually did that with my first marriage.  As time passed, I noted with alarm that the whole thing was growing faster than a Democrat politician’s spending plan, and I did two things:  first, I secretly bought our honeymoon air tickets (to the U.S., incidentally, where neither of us had been before);  then I presented that fact to the bride’s family as a fait accompli, and said that this wedding day was going to be made on a strict budget because we needed to save money to afford a month-long’s stay in the U.S.  Unbelievably, over time pressure was brought upon me by her family to cancel the U.S. trip for a shorter honeymoon at some resort somewhere in South Africa — said pressure only disappearing when I threatened to walk away from the whole wedding (and marriage) and go to the States on my own instead.  And I meant every word.

Anyway, that honeymoon Over Here was truly beneficial for me, in that I fell in love with this wonderful, fantastic country, big time… and the rest you know.

And all because like the couple above, I refused to spend a boatload of money on some one-day extravagance.  In their case, they got a lifetime’s worth of memories;  in my case, I changed my life’s entire path.

A bargain, for both of us.

More Food Scolding

Food & Drink

This time from some group I’ve never heard of before, the “2025 EAT-Lancet Commission”, who are “a coalition of experts in nutrition, climate, economics, health and agriculture from more than 35 countries.”

Needless to say, when this august body issues a report that contains this word garbage:

“The evidence laid out in our report is clear: the world must act boldly and equitably to ensure sustainable improvements.”

…you just know that it’s going to be total bullshit.

And so it is.

If people worldwide adopted their “Planetary Health Diet” (PHD), up to 15 million premature deaths could be avoided annually. 

Note the usual weaseling:  “up to” [some massive figure], and “could be” avoided.  No mention what the “premature” figure actually is and how it’s been derived.

Oh wait, I forgot this little snippet:

“Changing how the world eats could reduce premature deaths, save trillions of dollars and slow the impacts of climate change.”

Ah yes, the (by now thoroughly-debunked) bogeyman of Global Warming Climate Cooling Change©, and the promise of endless amounts of money to be saved — all undermined by the single word “could” — that would improve our world, if only yadda yadda yadda.

So what is this PHD master plan, exactly?

PHD is a plant-based menu that includes three to five daily servings of whole grains, at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables and daily servings of nuts and legumes.  The diet doesn’t call for the complete elimination of animal proteins for those who wish to continue eating them, but instead encourages people to consume red meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy in moderation. For example, the group recommends only one serving of red meat, two servings of fish and poultry and three to four eggs per week. They also call for strict limits on added sugars, saturated fats and salt.

You mean we shouldn’t all go completely vegan, then?  Color me surprised.  So to sum up;  eat pretty much what you want, in moderation.  Well, except a lot less bacon, steaks and hamburgers, you filthy carnivores.

Whatever.

What gets up my nose, however, is the implicit meaning of the expression “act boldly” in the very first paragraph of this post.  To pricks like this, “act boldly” means that some authority should begin to dictate how we eat, and enforce this foul nonsense.

Because the stakes are so high, you see.

And exactly how does this new buzzword “equitable” feature in this, anyway?  (I’ll save you the trouble of thinking about it:  it’s just a fashionable way to add justification to the cause du jour.  Ditto “climate change”.)

Simple conclusion for us:  fuck right off, assholes.  You have as much credibility on this topic as the assholes who gave us the (tragically wrong) Food Pyramid:  i.e. none.

It amazes me that over the past half century or so, while we have undoubtedly been eating more junk food, the worldwide stats for death by starvation — surely to be included in any count of premature deaths — have plummeted.  In fact, if one were to exclude acts of deliberate starvation perpetrated by government (hello, Comrade Stalin and various African / Asian warlords), there’s a convincing case to be made that starvation has become far less of a worldwide calamity than it was even in, say, 1950.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’m going to make myself a brekkie of bacon and (two) eggs with some toasted French bread on the side, and then head off to the range.

Exactly what I’m going to be shooting must await tomorrow’s range report.  It will, however, cause something of a stir.

Problem, Solution

Eco-Warriors, Hippie Filth

From Insty:

In the interests of saving precious avgas, may I make a humble suggestion — because there’s no need to take them all the way over to Yurp, after all.:

I’m sure Doom Goblin* Greta Thunberg of all people would appreciate the IDF’s effort to save eeeevil fuel and thus pollute Gaia’s atmosphere less.

Just a thought.

*okay, who came up with that wonderful nickname for the little Swedish retard?

3 Voices That Can Just STFU

The Worst

From now on, I’m actually not interested in hearing anything that these three people have to say, about anything.

Tucker Carlson
I used to listen to what he said — thanks to a gift subscription to his channel — back before he went completely off the rails.  Carlson is not a conservative, he’s not a Republican:  he’s a loose cannon, and I don’t care much for cannons of the loose persuasion.  Which leads me to my next loudmouth.

Candace Owens
If you’re going to choose a hill to die on, then why FFS would you decide that hill to be “Brigitte Macron is actually a man” ?  I’ve always been a little suspicious of Owens, because she’s a perfect example of today’s “influencer” ethos, where people of little talent or intellect try to dominate the media just by being “famous” or “edgy”.  Yes, she’s said some things that I agree with — e.g. calling out Black Lives Matter — but in today’s fucked-up world, that’s not difficult.  STFU Candace and go away.  You’re not a conservative commentator, you’re an embarrassment.  So stop pretending to be one.

Lindsey Graham
Master of the art of bandwagon statements.  In other words, he’ll chime in only after others have said something which makes Republicans cheer.  And when he says something all on his own, it’s usually wrong or else just bullshit.

Begone, all of you.

Quote Of The Day

Gummint, QOTD

From Breitbart:

“The press treats every shutdown like the asteroid about to kill the dinosaurs. It might not sell papers anymore, but it definitely triggers clicks and shares. Markets, by contrast, treat it like what it usually is — a Washington melodrama that doesn’t dent the real economy.”

And the public?  With every shutdown, we learn just how inessential so much of our government is to our day-to-day lives, and how much we need to prune it, drastically.

More Backtracking

Drive Time, Eco-Crap

This one had me giggling like a little girl:

Bentley has decided to delay its electric vehicle plans.

The historic carmaker that’s headquartered in Crewe, Cheshire, has opted for a shift in strategy as they now plan to renew three models with petrol engines, instead of electric.  The company originally planned to transition to a fully electric lineup by 2030 – under its Beyond100 strategy.  These previous plans included offering only plug-in hybrids and EVs by 2026, then eventually phasing out hybrids for a zero-emission lineup.

But why, oh why are they seemingly defying the EU/BritGov’s NetZero diktat ?

Bentley CEO, Frank-Steffen Walliser, said: “There is a dip in demand for luxury electric vehicles, and customer demand is not yet strong enough to support an all-electric strategy.

“The luxury market is a lot different today than when we announced Beyond100.

“Electrification is still our goal, but we need to take our customers with us.”

That last sentence is just to appease the Greens.

Frankly — given that Bentleys have stood for “luxury + power” ever since they won several Brooklands and Le Mans races in the 1930s — there’s little reason to think that a typical Bentley customer should be any different in, say, 2030 (or ever) than they’ve been since those halcyon days in the 1930s.

Massive engines — gasoline/petrol-powered — with ripsnorting power and “sufficient” speed are a Bentley trademark.  Hell, many Bentley customers — current and potential — are still seething about the company’s decision to dump the W12 in favor of a turbo V8.

And just as a reminder:  Bentley is owned by Volkswagen (the W12 is actually a VW design from the Phaeton).  VW is also the owners of other brands… and what are they doing?

Porsche, another brand that is owned by the VW Group alongside Bentley, recently announced plans to delay the launch of its latest EV due to low demand.  Instead, the iconic German sports car marque plans to focus on internal combustion engines and innovative technologies such as wireless charging — recently demonstrated with the upcoming Cayenne EV.

Similarly, Audi, yet another VW brand, has abandoned its goal of becoming an all-electric brand by 2033, instead opting for flexibility based on market conditions.

Oh.

Yeah, and those “market conditions” are being signaled by their respective customer bases with a common voice:  “Screw those stupid Duracell motors:  we want real engines in our performance cars.”

I could have told them this would happen, and in fact I did on these very pages.

And hey, I don’t own stock in VW — but if I did, I would have dumped it the very second they announced their stupid all-electric / electric-only initiative.