Airport Security

Double standards are rife at the world's airports. In these days of heightened security due to terrorism and Lady Gaga, why is it that there are so many differing rules. Is Norway not as scared as Egypt, or Hungary more confident than Brazil? It just seems like something where everyone should be working on the same page, if only so travellers don't get screwed around more than they already are.

An example: On a recent flight from the United States to Australia, I attempted to take a bottle of water onboard. At the security checkpoint I was told to return to the terminal and dispose of the liquids (I couldn't even drink the water on the spot). Then months later flying domestically within Australia, I brought a full bottle onboard with not so much as the batting of an eyelid.

So why is it that I can bring water on a domestic flight but not on an international flight? If the reason for banning liquids on aircraft is because of their potential as explosives, surely it is a double standard that I can take them on one flight yet not another. I like bringing my own water on a flight (not least because some airlines as tight enough to charge you for it) but can fully understand the logic in banning liquids on all flights, not just some.
On another journey I had in my carry-on luggage a jar of Marmite. This, again, was banned from the flight due to it being "liquid-based". On the same trip I was allowed to take a pocket knife because it was an "acceptable size". The security man had a lanyard which on it lay a ruler. Two pocket knives were taken, yet one was fine. So, no delicious spreads but a sharp and concealable blade is A-OK.

To this day I am baffled. The security officer's reasoning was that he "doesn't make the rules" from which I took, "Yeah I know, it's a ridiculous rule but I'm just doing my job". While he rifled through my belongings, unpacking my rucksack until it was bare, I noticed a family stood next to me also having their things searched. The security officer made their baby daughter sample each of her formulas, the reason being that if she can drink it then it poses no threat onboard. The family was clearly stressed, as was I.

Somehow I recovered the knives but alas, the marmite was forever lost. (I personally believe that the "liquid-based" reasoning is bullshit and the staff at Heathrow now enjoy it with crumpets every morning, along with whatever else they've taken on the grounds of airport security only to furnish their own homes with.

The Second Conning

Alan John Miller is Jesus Christ. Mary Suzanne Luck is Mary Magdalene. They became married sometime in the 1st century AD and can communicate with spirits. Just your average day on planet Earth.
Last Sunday The Courier Mail reported on a couple from Wilkesdale, Queensland who have for at least three years been recruiting followers after claiming to have "returned from the heavens to reveal truths on how to connect with God".
Now you can read the rest of the article yourself here: bit.ly/jOdZbu but I'm going to skip forward to a quote in the final paragraph which grabbed my attention most. In it Miller says, "There's probably a million people who say they're Jesus and most of them are in asylums. But one of us has to be." Now firstly on a very basic level, that sounds to me like bollocks. But if you are to delve deeper into his words you will find it is in fact complete and utter bollocks with a smidgen of insanity. I'd say he's dug his own grave by claiming a million people who say they're Christ are in mental institutions. Also, who says "one of us has to be"?
But Miller is certain: "My name is Jesus and I'm serious." Right case closed. He's Jesus okay everyone? Can we just accept he's Jesus? He's said he's Jesus. Do we really need anything else? His word's good enough for me so let's all just go home and pray in the name of Alan Christ.
Funnily enough, when I read the quote "My name is Jesus and I'm serious", I was drawn not to the Jesus bit but the latter part. When someone affixes the addendum "...and I'm serious" to a sentence, it is no different from "To tell the truth...", words indicating what is next said is not the truth (e.g. "To tell the truth you don't look fat in those jeans"). Saying you're JC is pretty serious as it is; actually saying you're serious leads me to believe he's only trying to convince himself.
The cyncial side of me (which is growing as I write this) says money has to be involved. Four paragraphs in, there it is: Donations. The paper states, "They only began remembering their past lives in recent years". Now again, hate to be cynical but my guess is these new memories arose around the time they racked up a little debt or were made redundant. Some people have bought homes in Wilkesdale and have invested in a $400,000 headquarters (As a carpenter I'm hoping Miller aided construction). So already we're talking large amounts of money being thrown about. And who can blame them? From the limited research I've undertaken, Wilkesdale looks like 1st century Bethlehem so it's a perfect match.
But seriously, all I want to know is Why? Why do people fall prey to these mentalists. Being weak and vulnerable is one thing but to sell your home, leave your family and move to be with some people who say they're holy? In Wilkesdale? Second is How? How did they con anyone with no proof? No birth certificate, no photos with Joseph and Noah, nothing. I ask because I'm envious of their success. If only I could walk around the local shopping centre collecting donations for claiming to be someone I'm not. Just imagine the possibilities! "Yeah I'm Gandhi so what? Just chill out man. Wanna get me some nachos?" Or even just down the pub: "Hey good lookin' how you doin'? I don't like to brag but ahhh I'm actually Confucius. Reincarnated actually, last Tuesday."
On a side note the Catholic Church is worried Miller and Luck may attract vulnerable people as disciples. Pot ... black ... kettle ... something.
To tell you the truth, I think we should give these guys a go as spiritual leaders.

A Whopper of a Lie

It's the wording that gets me. "Inspired"? If anyone can tell me how Hungry Jack's new Whopper of the Gods is inspired by the movie Thor, they can have $50*. This is lazy marketing and it's nothing new. Going back to the 1970s fast food giants have been pushing Hollywood's next big thing but it's the promotional burger which pushes my tolerance over the edge.

See I have nothing against movie tie-ins per se but it's the arrogance which pervades certain aspects of the tie-in that has me up in arms. Those commercials where you're encouraged to buy a Dark Whopper (The Dark Knight), an Indy Whopper (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) or a Homer Burger (The Simpsons Movie) with the promise that the product was somehow influenced by said movie. Usually the only difference between these and the original is an extra piece of cheese, a different sauce or less attitude from Debbie behind the counter.

So what goes through the minds of the hucksters who come up with this televisual trash? Not much clearly, as they've been using the same tie-in technique for decades. Every time a big movie is released you'll see the same commercial with one difference: the name of the film. (Compare this bit.ly/kiAjBv and this bit.ly/iC0dqU to see what I mean.)

Not only is it lazy marketing but it infers that the viewer is of little intelligence. People may very well buy a burger on its own merits but I don't believe anyone buys into the whole 'inspired' crap; as a society I would hope we are beyond such gullibility. But nevertheless, in advertising world our response works as follows:

Woman: Did you see that new Burger King whopper is inspired by the movie Thor?

Man: Inspired by? Well I love Thor and if that inspired a burger then I have to try it.

Woman: Me too! And did you happen to see all those other commercials for those other things? I think we should go and buy them.

Man: You're right, let's spend our money on those things we just saw advertised.

Meanwhile in advertising world, the evil Mr. Hype cashes his cheques and counts his villas whilst working on the next tie-in. To coincide with Justin Bieber's new film Never Say Never McDonald's are releasing the Bieber Burger. And to reflect the movie and its star, the burger will include two sugary buns but is completely hollow on the inside.

*$50 redeemable for Whoppers for a limited time only.

The World's Greatest Blog

The way people throw aroud superlatives these days is astounding. Whether it be to promote a business or promote themselves, some just seem to have delusions of grandeur. A body must be established to stop this behaviour before it reaches astronomical levels and we start to hear of the Universe's best... If you're not quite with me, take this all too common example: You see a sign outside a restaurant confidently stating 'WORLD'S GREATEST PANCAKES'. You dine here, order the pancakes, only to discover they are not the greatest pancakes you've tasted let alone the world's greatest.

So here are my questions I put to all of you in futile hope of a decent answer: Firstly, what survey or vote was undertaken to determine that this particular product is the greatest in the entire planet? Secondly, would my protestation that a certain item was not the world's best be throw out of court? Could I legitimately walk the streets announcing myself as the world's greatest man? (I might ask Bono about that one.) And lastly, what happened to just a menu, or a catalogue, or an advert without claims that cannot possibly be supported? Has it come to the point where business is this hard to come by that we must resort to such counterfactual declarations?

I am certain that (most) people are not so stupid as to fall for these statements. "Wait a minute, if we had the world's best coffee in Brazil last summer, how can we have also had the world's best in Dapto?"

 Until the day comes when I see 'WORLD'S GREATEST PANCAKES*' followed by '*backed by a questionnaire answered by 6,858,979,149 respondents', this claim does not sit well with me, and neither did the pancakes come to think of it.

Bienvenue Sur Mon Étron Poli

I was reminded today how many homes - apartment blocks mainly - have completely inappropriate names, names completely above their station. Whether it's Ocean View Terrace three kilometres inland or Paradise Shores situated near a methadone clinic and pawn shop, it's just not cricket. What made me twitch with frustration at these ridiculous names this evening was Belvedere Court, Belvedere being Italian for beautiful or fair view. It is a name befitting perhaps Vienna's Belvedere Palace or West Virginia's Belvedere Farm, but a suburban townhouse jammed in between two townhouses, those in turn bookended by thirty more townhouses? I don't think so. 
I have two theories on the naming of said urban structure: Either when it was built there was a beautiful view, unobstructed, with valleys to the left, waterfalls to the right and rainbow filled canyons as far as the eye could see. And second option: Some greasy-haired, low-life landlord upon seeing his new house initially, thought it lacked a certain je ne sais quoi. Something that would attract new tenants, and add thousands at auction. Half an hour later he returned with plastic letters, a hammer and some nails ready to put the finishing touches on his pride and joy. "Voila! Zis is zure to make my 'ouse the envy of ze neighbour'ood. Look at zem all vith their silly little 'ouse numbers. Idiots!"
I suggest the latter but in truth this practice has been around for yonks and unfortunately proliferated as time passed. Something that is less common and much appreciated by any prospective house-buyers is honesty in names. Take for example West Los Angeles' Crapi Apartments or Blandville Court in Sydney's inner west, a block which is truly bland in every sense of the word. It makes your average council estate look like The Hilton and was named after a man who murdered a naval officer before libelling Governor Macquarie. Nice.
Of course, no one should really be swayed by the name of a house, nor should they be stupid enough to be disappointed when their 30-square metre bedsit doesn't have extensive sights of a mossy glen or edelweiss growing in abundance. It's the same way Coca-Cola added grip to its bottles; just a way of getting you to buy something that has changed in no way whatsoever. A polished turd, if you will.

It's About Time, For Christ's Sake!

We at bollocks.com.au say good on Julia Gillard for confirming her stance as an Atheist in the wake of becoming the first female Australian Prime Minister. She follows in the footsteps of Gough Whitlam as a political non-believer and departs greatly from George W. Bush who had the big man on speed dial.
Whilst praising the new Welsh-born PM, we shame those who have knocked her for her position. Why should she have to defend her beliefs (or lack of them)? Tony Abbott is a devout Catholic but you don't hear Atheists publicly putting him down. She's also been knocked for not having children. If anything these two points should indicate that she is a career woman and is more likely to be solely focussed on the task at hand instead of parading herself in front of photographers every Sunday like a filthy media-whore.
It really says a lot about this topsy-turvy world we live in where you must list reasons why you believe something doesn't exist as opposed to why it does. Without going into the whole God thing too much, I want to touch on something Ricky Gervais said, which I keep close to heart and think about whenever this debate rears its head: "It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you I’ve got superpowers. But I can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!”
Surely being an Atheist also means you will think clearer and do what is just, without discriminating. Can a Catholic politician really say they would do what is best for a Muslim, or vice-versa? A prerequisite for joining any political party should be that you are not attached to any religious organisation. This dream may be some way off, I know, but with the appointment of Gillard as Australia's most powerful person, it's a step in the right direction.
This isn't a ringing endorsement for her political nous; that is yet to be tested. It is however a statement that in 2010 it's about time someone held conviction in their beliefs instead of kowtowing to statewide finger pointing just to gain a few votes.
This is definitely a topic that will be revisited down the line.

This Pain is Justin Describable

I am one of those seemingly very few who has found swallowing the Justin Bieber pill increasingly difficult. The boy is a ponce. A Canadian ponce, ey.
Yes, he has a rags-to-riches story as equally touching as Robert Mugabe's and probably doesn't intend any ill-will.
And, he may be the greatest singer of all time for all I care but it's more what he says when he's not on stage that irks me. Things like, "“I want them [girls] to hear my music and wanna play it again because it made their hearts feel good”. Sigh. And this: "It would be a shame to go out with a hot girl you can’t have a decent conversation with." Pot, kettle, black.
At least he's not arrogant as this pearler demonstrates. "A lot of people say, 'Oh, they just like him because he's pretty...'" Note the key words there, "a lot of people" and "because he's pretty". And the boy's clearly not ignorant as the now infamous basketball interview illustrated (http://bit.ly/cnD35n).
Various other statements he makes are littered with the kind of pretentious wank we've become accustomed to in the American Idol generation. "To be a real artist, songwriting is something you need to do, just to express who you are as a person." Let me attempt to dissect this toss. Firstly, I hardly think you can call this songwriting:

My first love broke my heart for the first time

And I was like

Baby, baby, baby ohhh

Like baby, baby, baby noo

Like baby, baby, baby ohh

I thought you'd always be mine mine

And secondly, if songwriting expresses who you are as a person, that would make Bieber and his songs equally shite.
But perhaps I should be less annoyed at this pimple-laden mountie and instead direct my frustration towards his fans. After all, even Bieber says, "I'm surprised to see that so many people are enjoying listening to my music".
You and me both.
The last word goes to young Justin Drew Bieber who knows exactly how I feel when his music plays: "And you can see the look on my face, it just tears me apart."

Coming To A Cinema Near You: The Tourists

As Eminem once rapped, "Guess who's back, back again?" That's right, the bollocks blog (bollog) is back after taking a much needed vacation to the Seychelles. Okay, I can't back that up. There was no trip to the Seychelles. But we did spend a while meditating on mountains in Tibet. No, I'm sorry that's another lie. Truth is we pretty much just sat and did nothing for a weeks on end. And hunted wild antelope. In Kyrgyzstan.
So, on the topic of holidays I thought I'd write about the inner tourist in all of us. Please allow me to elaborate. Have you ever noticed that when you're in your own city you constantly complain about German backpackers getting in your way with their unnecessarily large cameras or a bus load of Japanese that clog up a footpath, all holding maps the wrong way up. And you're sick to death of walking past every other shop selling tat with the the city's name on it. Full of macadamia nuts, pretend street signs stating 'Kangaroos next 10km' and snow globes, so shoddily made it's no surprise they're in the discount bin.
But my friends, something happens when we travel. We become what so frustrates us daily. We are (cue 1960s horror movie-style voice) ... The Tourists. I'm shocked there was never a Hitchcock film with this title - forget The Birds, there's a new epidemic in town! I find myself taking snaps of non-descript buildings that for all I know are the headquarters of a dog food company but for some unknown reason I persevere because of the way the light falls on said structure. Or I'll take a panoramic of a stormwater drain. Go figure. All I know is I'll get home, go through my pics and won't have a clue what they're of or why I took them, all the while shaking my head in disbelief of the demon that momentarily possessed me.
It could be an illness. Can anyone tell me if there are doctors at a research lab looking in to this? If not there should be. I can see the headlines already: SCIENTISTS CURE TOURINGITIS. (That's the best I've come up with so far.)
Until that day however, I must live alone with this debiliatiting condition with only my koala slippers and 'I heart Australia' t-shirt to keep me company.

Badd Inglish

It's funny how one little apostrophe or one missed letter can cause so much anguish. But it's true, and there's no excuse for abuse of the English language as demonstrated in the following photos. It would defy belief that someone could so heinously erode the foundations of a once great language, if only this practice wasn't commonplace in 2010. With text speak and the like, is it getting to the point where to correctly use English is uncommon, time consuming and even frowned upon? People hand out flyers, distribute pamphlets, hang banners and print t-shirts all with errors; no proofreading, no revisions, not even an old-fashioned Microsoft Word spell-check. Sadly, there's less and less effort every day.

And you may point out that many of the culprits are from non-English speaking backgrounds but surely if you're going to sell clothing or advertise a product in an English speaking country such as Australia, that's reason enough to get it right. I don't know about you but I'm hesitant to invest money into, for example, a fridge if the word 'fridge' is spelled incorrectly. It leads me to believe when I open the box at home I will find a fridge made by Fisher Price, not Fisher and Paykel. Attention to detail is all it takes.

It also shows arrogance that someone would pay for all of these signs without having a native English speaker check it first. Or the sign writer made the errors in which case he's in the wrong business. Either way, how can you be this confident yet balls it up so very badly? To save myself from going mad, I like to think it was intentional, just to draw attention. Like when Lowes Ladies store opened in Sydney with a giant window display stating  'Openining Soon', perhaps this has fooled us all.

I doubt it.

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://blog.bollocks.com.au/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.


For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.bollocks.com.au/feeds/posts/default.