MandM: Humour

Showing posts with label Humour. Show all posts

Monday, 27 April 2009

Swine Flu in New Zealand? Come On! UPDATED

The only reason I paid any attention to the radio news as I was navigating bad traffic driving back from my regular surgeon's appointment today was because of the reference to Rangitoto College where, last century, I went to high school.

I disinterestedly listened to the story, something about swine flu - what's that? Rolled my eyes as I heard the drug-solution being touted was Tamiflu - isn't it always? Laughed as I heard that the timing was spot on, apparently the millions of packets of unused Tamiflu purchased during the bird-flu panic were about to expire so the government might get to use them instead of throwing them out. Then I thought nothing more of it and went home and cooked dinner.

I turned on the evening news and it was nothing but Swine Flu for nearly half an hour! Did nothing else happen today or something? The footage consisted of a lot of repetition of statistics and footage of interviewers standing in quarantined people's gardens with said quarantined people waving at the camera's from inside their houses eagerly sharing how bored they were and what they were doing to pass the time via the phone.

Now of course the obligatory emails have started coming in from friends and rellies overseas who are watching CNN and other international news stations, who must be making out that half of New Zealand has come down with it, as now I find myself spending the evening replying to emails, "We are all well; no, we don't have any swine flu symptoms."

Sorry if I sound cynical but I can't help but wonder if the New Zealand end of this story is not going to end up in the same file as bird flu and the Y2K crisis. For those of you taking it seriously, see MacDoctor for a checkup. For everyone else, enjoy this found on XKCD.

Twitter on Swine Flu

UPDATE:

Ok so New Zealand does have some confirmed cases - see the above link to MacDoctor's site for the official numbers.

For those of you still rolling your eyes at the hysteria, see Ozymandias' I have SWINE FLU for some relief.

PJ O'Rourke on Perfect Form: A Review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing

Given that PJ O'Rourke will be speaking in Auckland this week (see details, Invisible Hand versus Visible Fist) I thought I would share this gem with you; it is a rant by PJ O'Rourke on politically correct language, Perfect Form: A Review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing.

It is so funny that it is hard to read in one go, as you can't help but laugh so hard you can no longer read and it causes you to immediately want to read bits of it aloud to whoever you happen to be near so if you are at work and yours is not that kind of workplace, I'd wait 'til you get home to read it.

Hat Tip: Lydia McGrew at What's Wrong with the World (Lydia also links to another send-up of PC madness by John C. Wright in the same post.)

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

How to become a Famous Blogger

As MandM have recently been flagellated with the following non-sequitur [no link as the accusers righteously distance themselves from seeking readership from any source not purist enough to already follow their blogs for blogging solely for joy in their niche category and as we would hate to offend by increasing either's Technorati ranking (is mentioning that both have Technorati accounts an accusation of hypocrisy?) we respectfully do not link to them here]. The non-sequitur alleged against us is,

[1] If you appear to pay attention to how your blog ranks, its readership and other stats; then
[2] You are blogging with the wrong motives.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The missing premise is that if you pay attention to something then this is your primary motive. It is like saying that because you pay attention to how much you are being paid, your only motivation to work is to get paid and then in a bizarre attempt to avoid materialism allow your family to starve with no income.

We realised, as we wallowed in our "shame" and "self-indulgence" for expressing stokedness at being the number 1 New Zealand Christian Blog in HalfDone's rankings for March 09, that our only option was to embrace the dilemma and confess our sins; yes we have a tracking counter *sob* and a Technorati account and not only do we publish the top 10 NZ Christian blog rankings in which we consistently feature somewhat prominently but when we feature at the top of a New Zealand blog ranking report it does give us a brief, momentary surge of accomplishment [I know, I know, penitence, penitence for such wanton emotions - our accusers pay no attention whatsoever to their readership and we should follow their pietistic example].

As such, we feel obligated to share our strategy, it is the least we can do to make up for our indiscretions. In Well I’ll Be Blogrolled! Dr Doug Geivett provides sage instruction as to how to obtain your 15 minutes in the chart published below. We adhere to this religiously (and we spend many hours each week researching and writing our blogs when we could be getting on with our lives but I am sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with our ranking "success" and speaks only to our motives). /sarcasm>

I will leave it to our readers to work out which route we have taken.

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

In Dread Response, Misheard Lyrics and our son Christian

On the video box of the Bebo page of the lead vocalist of New Zealand band In Dread Response, there currently features an animated You Tube clip, made by our son Christian, for the lyrics of Scarecrows in the Sky.

Christian has Aspergers Syndrome and sees things very literally which makes his interpretation of the lyrics to this song particularly funny (even though there were one or two frames where he got a parental glare - he is 14).

While In Dread Response is not the sort of music I want my teenagers listening too (gosh I sound like my parents), I can see the appeal of this song as the lyrics are kinda crazy and knowing Christian's sense of humour, I can see why he chose it to work with (he makes a lot of animations). It is nice to know the band appreciated his work enough to display it on their page.

Monday, 30 March 2009

Daniel Hannan v Gordon Brown the "Brezhnev era Apparatchik" UPDATED

This is a must view; if only New Zealand politicians could debate and insult each other with this level of panache (and reason this well as well) then people other than David Farrar might tune in to parliament TV (ok, I watch it too).

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist and has been Conservative MEP (Member of the European Parliament) for South East England since 1999. He writes of this video footage, "Gordon Brown was in town in advance of the G20 summit. There were a couple of things I wanted to tell him on behalf of my constituents:"

Hat Tip: True Paradigm

I wonder if Daniel would like to move to Auckland, to Mt Albert to be precise, as there's a vacancy opening up there soon he'd be more than qualified for.

UPDATE: There is an interview with Daniel Hannan on Vox Popoli following the aftermath that this speech being broadcast on You Tube caused.

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Barack Milks the US Treasury Dry

This cartoon sums the US bailouts under Obama nicely:

AIG and other bailouts under Obama

Hat tip: Pal2Pal

Sunday, 22 March 2009

South Park on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The flawed reasoning, commonly found in most media commentary on human embryonic stem-cell research, was not lost on the makers of South Park. I love how brutal South Park are in exposing PC rubbish; see the YouTube clips below.

[There are two, fast loading, clips below; they are linked so that both will autoplay]

Hat Tip: Say Hello to my Little Friend: The Beretta Blog and Podcast from Glenn's blog "Yay for stem cell research. But why bring Embryos into it?"

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Madeleine Playing in the Sandpit

There is a great exchange on KiwiBlog in the comments section here where Madeleine takes to task some of the other commenters on biblical interpretation. Her ability to render the arguments to stupidity with ease and a nice dose of dry humour thrown in is very amusing and worth a look. She has a gift.

I particularly liked her "Bill killed Jane" analogy and intend to use it in a talk or article sometime though she says I have to footnote her. Madeleine writes:

Just as, if you picked up a murder mystery, randomly flicked it open and read the line “Bob killed Jane” it would be wrong to conclude bob did in fact kill Jane without reading the whole book and seeing the context the statement occurred in. The statement could have been made in the context of a question: “did Bob kill Jane?” It could have been “I had a nightmare last night that bob killed Jane”, it could have been gossip “I head Mary say that Bob killed Jane.” Of course, it could have in fact been the case that Bob killed Jane or it could be a false conclusion the author wants you to think because in fact Peter killed Jane as revealed in chapter 10 - you don’t know and you shouldn’t assume without looking at the context. You cannot just say “what’s your problem, 'Bob killed Jane' is plane English."

The context that words in a text occur in is not a fall-back position, it is a legitimate point and a key component of interpreting any language including an English translation of an Aramaic sermon written using Semitic idioms thousands of years ago.

This one was also good:

..your ability to exegete scripture is about as strong as my ability as a non-surgeon to tell you how to conduct a coronary bypass (without googling).

I could give you a rough idea based on my lay-person’s knowledge of anatomy and of course the number of episodes of Gray’s Anatomy, ER and other medical dramas I watch on TV but I would look like a complete dickhead if I asserted my theory to a cardiothoracic surgeon.

You have no idea how many times I have felt this way, it is an occupational hazard of being a theologian though I am sure many professionals have similar frustrations when lay people tell them what's what in their specialty.

Tuesday, 30 December 2008

What Lefties do to Christmas

Currently we have Say Hello to my Little Friend's Glenn (plus wife and kids) staying with us which is very cool because we are all old friends. They normally live in the south island so catching up since we left has been rare.

Anyway, Glenn does a lot of podcast's on his blog and he did a very cool one on what politically correct leftyness might do to Christmas, which he played for us last night - complete with funny voices and background sound and music effects (all done by Glenn). It is quite a departure from his usual, philosophical podcast fare but none the less it is very funny.

It is available on his blog here (as I have no idea how to insert a podcast into blogger). Glenn does link to a script of what is basically on his podcast but reading it is nowhere near as funny so if you are able to play the podcast, don't spoil it, just play the podcast and enjoy!

Saturday, 22 November 2008

Blogging for Dummies: A Guide

Seasoned blogger Barnsley Bill shares some tips in Blogging for Dummies, complete with live updates from commenters (including yours truly). It is hysterically funny because, sadly it is so true.

I have reproduced the list and will update it throughout the day linking to live examples that I know of and commenting on relevance, feel free to point to others.

1. Choose a witty sobriquet. Something which makes you sound clever, preferably a character from an obscure novel. If you haven’t read a book use a character from a film.
[Check. MandM plays on a number of cultural icons Eminem - Look Who's Back, M&M lollies, Subway Biscuits and it happens to be how people refer to us (and its less spack that Mattie and Maddie)]

2. Pick up on grammar or spelling mistakes to emphasise your point. If you haven't got a point choose one from someone even angrier than you.
[The observant will have noticed that particularly Matt makes a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes, we think he is dyslexic, but its always a good comeback when you can't refute his argument]

3. Use a straw man to make everyone who says anything reasonable sound like they are advocating child murder. If you don't know what a straw man is, you are probably using one anyway so don't worry.
[Couldn't find an example where one of us was accused of advocating child murder, though I have some dim recollection that it has happened, but here is one where Matt is asked if he wants to confess to being both gay and into pedophilia, ironically this comment came in a discussion where Craig Young complained, justly, that gay men are often falsely accused of all being pedophiles and Matt asked for some more info on his stats.]

4. Exaggerate, misquote and mislead. Deliberately misconstrue simple points in order to emphasise their advocacy of a position they were not taking.
[This happened to me on The Standard just the other day; I pointed out that an income of $40,001 did not make one "wealthy", especially if one had a family an lived in a main centre. Apparently I meant I was an uncaring tory and had no sympathy for "the 70% of New Zealanders who earn LESS than $40000."]

5. Lend legitimacy to your argument by using the following expressions: guardianista, NuLab, dear leader. This will instantly confound MPs and impress your blogging chums.
[I couldn't think of one off hand but then Cactus Kate came to the rescue.]

6. If you're in danger of talking about the issues, remember you're on shaky ground, back away. In fact its probably safer if you avoid this risk altogether by not reading the original post.
[Matt argued that sustenance rights do not necessarily entail statism and anonymous said "So if the government doesn't remove the wealth of the rich the poor will starve." Or here, where the person actually admitted they did not read the post before commenting.]

7. Talk about some mythical age in which this country hadn't had it so good. Usually before there were any immigrants or before social welfare became a 20 billion dollar a year entity.

8. If all that fails reduce everything to 1984. Pick a theme and repeat it over and over again until the internet ceases to exist, or we're all dead, or whatever it is that you're sure is going to happen happens. This is a sure fire way to deal with your crushing sexual inadequacy.
[Sounds like most of the people I went to law school with at Waikato. Sadly it also sounds like most of the lecturers too. Auckland Uni is a massive improvement on that score.]

9. Post a pompous long-winded and convoluted reply that nobody can be arsed reading, so they probably won't bother refuting it. They will just reply that you are a wanker and so one wins the moral high ground! Courtesy of Oswald
[Matt gets accused of engaging in this all the time but if you actually read what he says it is worth wading through. Great live example here, in fact the blog post that sparked these comments could be said to suffer the same problem]

10. Accuse anyone who made a devastating and witty critique that completely blew your point out of the water to be posting under a fake name. Suggest they are really someone that your friends don't like. Courtesy of Madeleine
[Multiple examples from this particular person I am thinking of but here is one where he wrongly accuses someone else of being Matt]

11. Post as anonymous and then complain when other people allege that the other anonymous's comments are yours. Courtesy of Madeleine

12. When you do spot something that most people don't understand but you do, find a way of making a clever statement demonstrating your superior understanding. (Even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic just as as long as people think you are cleverer than them) Courtesy of Madeleine
[Couldn't find one off the top of my head but Roger Nome attempts to do this here:"Ahh - argument by analogy. It enjoyed its hay day back in ancient Greece, but it's still good for convincing the masses that a false premise is in fact sound and true." Matt's response is priceless]

13. If in doubt, especially good when you simply lack the ability to respond and you know you are outgunned, invoke the never fail technique of calling everyone hate-filled, intolerant, bigots and wonder out loud where all their venom comes from. Courtesy of Matt
[Exhibit A and Exhibit B and Exhibit C]

14. When discovering someone's post or comment too late to implement 2.-13. (because of wide-spread link and comment support) throw your toys out of the cot and point out, anonymously of course, that the National have not yet removed the draconian legislation affronting free speech and you will have their site torn down. Courtesy of Matt
[See most of the comments from the anonymous's on this thread]

15. If a woman says something you don't like attack her appearance and shaggability. Either call her a fat, ugly, smelly, ham-burger, stuffing heifer or make a llewd suggestions and set up a poll on her sex appeal.
[This was Critic's favourite line of attack against me, and Nexus's, but neither student mags have online examples anymore, though here are two: James Jenkins; Scalia (though Scalia I think is not trying to attack me)]

16. Psychoanalyse your opponent. Refer to their upbringing, their relationship with their father, how much they were breast-fed, their attraction to fire and their alleged sexual inadequacies.
[See here and here.]

17. Godwin's law; find an analogy between the person you disagree with and Hitler (or Muldoon if you want a kiwiana version).
[I think we have all seen examples of these]

We have tapped a rich vein here, the latest three offerings are from Madeleine again

18. Start referring to excreta in your post or comment. i.e. "Pooping in the mouth of democracy". OH DEAR, this "offering" courtesy of OECD

Sunday, 31 December 2006

Happy New Year Diet!

Someone just forwarded me this:

Twas The Diet After Christmas

Twas the day after Christmas and all through the house, nothing would fit me,not even a blouse!
The cookies I'd nibbled,the eggnog I would taste at the holiday parties had gone to my waist.

When I got on the scales there arose such a number! When I walked to the store (less a walk than a lumber),
I'd remember the marvelous meals I'd prepared; the gravies and sauces and beef nicely rared,
the wine and the rum balls, the bread and the cheese... And the way I'd never said, "No thank you, please."

As I dressed myself in my husband's old shirt and prepared once again to do battle with dirt.
I said to myself, as I only can"You can't spend a winter disguised as a man!"
So away with the last of the sour cream dip. Get rid of the fruit cake, every cracker and chip!
Every last bit of food that I like must be banished." Till all the additional ounces have vanished.
I won't have a cookie - not even a lick. I'll want only to chew on a long celery stick.
I won't have mulled wine, or mince tarts, or pie, I'll munch on a carrot and quietly cry.

I'm hungry, I'm lonesome, and life is a bore. But isn't that what January is for?
Unable to giggle, no longer a riot. Happy New Year to all and to all a good diet!

Saturday, 2 December 2006

Stadium Solution Farrar Style

Saw this on Kiwiblog and just had to swipe it.

The comments section is very funny in places too.

Friday, 1 December 2006

Home Education

We are fans of home education and we home educate our kids. We cop a lot of flak at times from people who assume that they will be better off in school - usually because they went to school and they have taken on the false assumptions about home education. Often it feels as if we have to justify ourselves over and over though I am sure the proof in the end will be in how our kids turn out - but that means years til they get off our backs!

I got this in my email account today, its apparently drawn from a home educator called Dayna who featured on a Dr Phil program.

If the child's not interested in what they're being taught, then basically teaching is simply somebody talking in the front of the room, its like throwing marshmallows at somebody's head and calling it eating."

This cracked me up because it pin points with humour one of my big issues with how pointless the school system is. What I did learn in school that stuck in my head was the stuff I was interested in, that was interesting to learn.

I find as we teach our kids that if we make the subject interesting it sticks. Our older two kids can seriously run rings around their schooled peers when it comes to general knowledge, english, maths, history and science basics and their logic skills and their ability to reason and think critically is so far ahead of their schooled friends its not funny.

Our 14 year old had a group of her friends around for a movie night. She had about 10 friends there who ranged in age from 13-16 who went to various different schools around Dunedin - some private, some public, some low decile, some high. The movie they were watching was Troy. None of them knew anything about the story of Troy, one kid wondered out loud "why they made such a big horse" and several others murmered agreement that it was "weird" and that "the plot doesn't make any sense." Our daughter began laughing quietly to herself and shooting us looks, as did our 10 year old son - though neither had seen the movie before.

Then, one of the friends pointed at the picture on our lounge wall, it is a print of the pointing fingers in the creation of Adam by Michelangelo. "That's a stupid picture, why would anyone want a picture of two fingers?" one girl sniggered. The others laughed too. Our daughter said that's Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. She got blank looks, so she said "you know, Michelangelo? Do you not know who he was?" She got the indignant reply, "Yes of course we know, he was one of the teenage mutant ninja turtles."

We collapsed in hysterics and a room full of schooled kids looked blankly at us while our daughter tried to explain further "he was a famous artist, he painted the sistine chapel.." of course this just made it worse as they had no clue what the sistine chapel was.

Thursday, 30 November 2006

An Atom Walks Into a Bar . . .

[Stolen from Maverick Philosopher]

. . . looking dejected. The bartender says, "What's wrong, pal?" The atom replies, "I lost an electron." Bartender: "Are you sure?" Atom: "I'm positive!"

Linkbar