Monthly Archives: April 2013

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Sports Training

I am a cyclist. My training therefore, comprises, cycling. Dumbbell curls? Marathon training? Stomach crunches? Leg weights? No. Anything else would be a waste of time. I’m a cyclist. I train for my sport by cycling. So why, when a professional player of another sport embarks on a training regime, do they work the physiological gamut?

For example: take a professional cricketer. Half of their training is spent in the nets or on the field, bowling, batting, catching, throwing, running; ultimately, practising cricket. The other half of their training is spent in the gymnasium. Why? Why does a cricketer need to build muscles that simply, he will not use in the game of cricket? In fact, the only thing this will achieve, is to make the rest of his muscles more prone to injury. You see, in order to remain supple and optimally functional, muscles require a mineral called magnesium. When a cricket player spends time building up an impressive, but largely pointless physique, his magnesium requirement is increased; thus on account of these unneeded muscles, the muscles that he does use during a cricket match will be that much more likely to strain. Same goes for any sport; why build unnecessary muscle tone? Admittedly, in the game of rugby union or rugby league, it’s more about bulk; but the fact remains, build excessive bulk and the majority of that bulk, is nothing but burdensome. Why do you think sporting injuries have increased so much over the years? Is it that physical games have become that much more demanding? Perhaps, on some level, yes. Or is it that players are so focused on growing their physiques that their bodies can no longer cope with all that unneeded muscle tone?

A typical marathon runner is practically emaciated, yet their legs possess more strength than that of most other sportspeople; these people run farther than any other sportsperson and suffer few ill consequences. Conversely, a rugby league player is one of the strongest, most fit looking sportspeople there are; they run a few intermittent kilometres during the course a game and they’ll be lucky if they can walk the next day. I know, it was a poor example; comparing contact with non-contact sports is unfair, but the point is that the marathon runner has only the strength he requires for his sport and nothing more, while the rugby league player carries with him around 40kgs of superfluous bulk. Professional cyclists have massive legs, but how much time do you think they spend with dumbbells in their hands? Less than bugger all, that’s how much.

My conclusion, which, if I’m not careful, will be lost, is that, although I understand the desire for contact sportsmen to propagate big, buff, don’t-mess-with-me-or-I’ll-smash-ya physiques; it can’t work both ways. One cannot expect to build this muscle tone in the gym, then not use it in the game, and still finish feeling satisfactorily lissome. It doesn’t work like that. So to all you non-contact sportspeople out there, if you’re not going to use the muscle in your chosen profession, for God’s sake, don’t bother building it during training.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Hygiene

I wonder how many people out there have ever seen bacteria, or better yet, seen a single bacterium. Interesting. Admittedly, the majority of us have never witnessed these microscopic joy-germs at work, yet thanks to what we see on health or cleanliness orientated television shows, sensationalised warnings of global pandemics and moreover, what our parents endeavour to instil in us – so called facts based primarily on what their parents instilled in them, probably resulting from preaching parents yet another generation above them, we are taught to go about our lives with a mortal fear of falling victim to the almighty bacterium.

Babies live on the ground. This is fact. We have all seen this. A baby’s mother doesn’t seem perturbed by the fact that the, once chocolate covered, now plain white and decidedly sodden biscuit on which that baby chews, has fallen out of the aforementioned’s mouth a number of times and, as onlookers see the morsel being grasped in those filthy little hands and smeared around to eventually find its way inside the cake-hole, is now covered in pet hair, dust and other miscellaneous debris that once made its home on that supposedly clean family floor. The mother isn’t worried. Other guests think its cute, even funny. More comical still, is the way that the family dog then approaches, takes half the biscuit in its mouth and playfully wrestles the baby for control, before someone steps up to give assistance, allowing the human to prevail over the canine; then what’s left of that biscuit, dog slobber and all, disappears again betwixt the baby’s eager lips. Oh, mercy, what a rollicking good time.

Adults, generally, live one to two metres above the ground. Also fact. If we were spotted rolling around on the floor holding in our unwashed hands some sort of biscuit treat, pushing then withdrawing it from our mouths; dropping it then recapturing; picking it up then sticking it along with both hands in our mouths; sharing the treat with the dog; touching its mouth then stuffing our fingers back in our own… Sure, we would shunned by all who knew us for acting like an idiot – but that’s not the point. Anybody who bore witness to such a display from anybody but an infant, would no doubt make comment something along the lines of, ‘Oh, God, yuck, that is disgusting. Think of all the germs, oh, look, it’s all dirty, oh, yuck, oh, they’re gonna get sick for sure – that is like, just, disgusting!’

Come on. Be realistic. It’s the ground. Good ol’ terra firma. We take our food from it. We take our water from it. We walk upon it. We play upon it. We live upon it. Granted, it can’t be good to eat all of our meals directly from it, but this is why human beings have immune systems; this great part of our biological constitution does its best to protect us from the World’s burgeoning array of health concerns. The immune system beats down nefarious toxins, pernicious impurities and in general, anything that our liver would otherwise deem unfit for human process but on this occasion has allowed to slip through. ‘That’s right,’ you might say, ‘and that’s why we allow our babies to be exposed to it, it helps build immunity.’ Yes, for the most part, I agree, that does make sense. So tell me, when do we stop letting our children eat germs and say, ‘Right, that’s enough immunity building for you, now it’s time to start acting like a grown up’? My ultimate question therefore, is, why can’t we keep on being unhygienic, thereby continuing to build immunity towards these inimical agents? When does ‘immunity building’ become ‘disgusting behaviour’? For example, if your food skids from your plate and hits the ground; why would you not pick it up and eat it? I’m damn sure a baby would. By the way, the 30 second rule, is bollocks. The instant any object comes within a millimetre of the ground, it becomes covered with a microscopic film of bacteria – so do you honestly think it’s only on the ground? I do understand, there’s a certain level of etiquette by which people are expected to live their lives, but really, think about it; how is poor hygiene as a grown up, any worse for someone than poor hygiene as a child. If anything, I’d say it must be better – adults have had a lifetime of bacteria fighting to inure themselves.

To me, it all appears so obvious; the rest of you, perhaps less so. So consider it; consider the reasons that we have always been told to ‘wash up’, ‘keep eating areas and especially bathrooms and toilets clean and germ-free’, ‘you must wipe away every trace of bacteria’ (which, as earlier stated, none of us regular people have even seen anyway) and so on and so forth. The more hygiene-conscious folk among us will be undoubtedly purchasing hundreds of dollars worth of cleaning, scrubbing, germ removing and so called anti-bacterial products each year; all in a vain attempt to ‘completely rid surfaces of germs’. People. For God’s sake, germs are everywhere, they’re in the air, they’re on the ground, they cover everything, they are constantly all over us; you cannot rid your house of germs. We lay our food on plates – uncovered plates I might add – in open air. Do you seriously believe you’re eating only what is on your fork? What about breathing? Again, do you think the air in your lounge room, shared with four other, possibly flatulent, family members, is unadulterated? Probably not, no; but that’s it, it’s a triviality – it doesn’t matter!

Germs, bacteria, infection and virus are everywhere. You can choose to be sucked in by corporate propaganda and buy in to the myriad anti-bacterial cleaning products that are out there; or you can trust that you as a healthy human being, will handle it.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Drug Use

Before beginning this piece, I would like to make clear that I am not a user of illicit substances; nicotine and alcohol are my current poisons of choice. Admittedly, like many, my younger years did provide an introduction to cannabis, but that was soon relinquished. Nothing more was ever sampled.

The World’s heavier, harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamine and the like, have earned an unequivocally bad reputation; occurrences relating to the aforementioned I believe, have been blown up and sensationalised by our old friend, the Media. Now, I will not for an instant claim that drugs are good – but neither will I maintain that all these drugs are as bad as they are purported to be in this particular forum. If they are illegal, obviously, they are prohibited, therefore, not to be had; but realistically, what we as the public see and hear of drugs in various news broadcasts, is not always, entirely accurate.

Granted, I am not a user; although I have had first hand experience of people who are. These are generally good people who have simply made the choice to try something different. Alcohol is a drug, but it’s legal; cocaine is a drug, but it’s illegal. In my experience, both have more or less the same affect on people; alcohol users, if anything, are more prone to violence than users of other drugs; that is, LSD, ecstasy (I have no experience with heroin) and lastly, the most vilified of them all, meth. That’s right people, I have been in the vicinity of people taking methamphetamine, and yes, I have lived to tell the tale. You see, not all meth users become hopelessly addicted to the stuff, not all users go on rampages and kill everyone in sight; not all meth users are bad people. This is a misconception built up and perpetuated by the media, then hit home by those reality Police shows on TV. We see television clips of meth users, sleepless for a week, acting as if they’ve been inhabited by the Devil; heroin users broken down, sleeping on the street in a puddle of their own faeces and urine (hell, I’ve seen drunkards like that); cocaine, ecstasy users who have lost the plot… it goes on.

So tell me this. If these people had not devoted their lives to binge drug-taking and instead, had endeavoured to fashion a life for themselves as a respected member of conformist society, how do you think they would have gone? Do you think they would have succeeded? Do you honestly think that these people, the very same people who in another time would have gone on to become rampant drug users, could in this time, go on to become upstanding family members, or pre-eminent businessmen? Exactly. You see, those reprobate drug addicts who fill television news broadcasts, then later take up the majority of that Police 10/7 show, were most likely, not blessed with the level of rational mentality or even adequate cognitive function, that you might consider normal. They were probably never going to be able to make it in the big wide world and by succumbing to drug addiction, all they have done is prove this.

So don’t be a dung beetle in sheep’s clothing by swallowing all the crap that the media tries to feed you; be objective. A dickhead will be a dickhead sober or inebriated; give him drugs, he’s still going to be more or less a dickhead. Conversely, a gentleman will be a gentleman sober or inebriated; give him drugs, he’s still going to be more or less a gentleman. Drugs don’t change who you are, they merely amplify who you are. Conclusion? Elementary. It’s not the drugs, it’s the people who take them; besides, far as I can tell, alcohol is much more to people’s detriment than most illegal drugs could be in their sleep.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Population Growth

Armageddon. It’s a hell of a word – for some, perhaps literally. So, how, why and when will it befall our planet?

Couldn’t say exactly, but here’s a little something to consider in those rare moments between dealing with threats that our lavish, extravagant lives are killing the planet for future generations; or being fed sensationalised hype about Global Warming and impending doom. It is true that the current generation is ruining the game for latecomers, yes; but not in the way we might have expected. Now. I will simply place before you the facts, then leave it up to you to deal with them – so put on your deciphering hats (and be sure to pull down the brim so nobody sees your shock, your alarm, or your trembling lower lip).

The year is 1850. The World population has just cracked that fabled 1 billion mark. Wow. Who could ever have foreseen that one coming?

The year is now 1930. When somebody wasn’t looking, the World’s population doubled. It is now 2 billion. Work that one out, geniuses. It took one thousand, eight hundred and fifty years to propagate one billion people, then only an additional eighty for the next billion.

The millennium clock just shifted, 2000. We now have over six billion people.

Permit me to simplify.

1850. 1,000,000,000 people – 80 years on, add another 1,000,000,000.

1930. 2,000,000,000 people – 70 years after that, this time add 4,000,000,000

2000. 6,000,000,000 plus – 60 years after that, anybody’s guess.

In fact, there has been professional speculation (that has to be an oxymoron) that by 2060, there will be around 10,000,000,000 people walking the planet… Really? That’s all? Who the hell’s doing the sums here? If, in last 70 years until 2000, the population increased four times the amount it did in the 80 years prior to that, how can they honestly assume that in the next 60, it will only go up by that same amount – 4 billion? Personally, I think someone is fudging facts.

This phenomenon is referred to as the Population J Curve. Essentially, for as long as time has been ticking, and people have been procreating, population has been exponentially growing. ‘But of course,’ I hear you saying in that pompous tone of yours, ‘that’s obvious, the more people there are, the more people there are to make more people…’ Exactly. Exponential. So, if, in 1850 they bounded through the billion threshold, then in 2000 we did the same but at six times the scale, the question becomes, for how much longer is this sustainable? Pollution, climate change; all well and pertinent – but is anybody really concerned with our inexorable population? Yes, I realise that China has implemented sanctions on child birth, and so they should, they are by far the greatest offenders – if I knew China’s population yesterday, I sure as hell have no idea of its number now.

So Global Warming. It might be the thing to nab us, what with an excess of water in the oceans; plants and life in general not handling the erratic weather patterns – but that’s not scheduled for a least 100 years. Meantime, our population is out of control. A layman could easily sit back and say: ‘No worries, more people, more workers, more being built and developed, therefore more products for consumers and all that’ – but that’s not logical. It is this planet that is our ultimate source of life; without its bountiful offerings, we could not survive.

Check that, we will not survive.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Renting v Buying

To all you renters out there who believe that you’ve chosen an easy, stress-free life by avoiding the rigours of home ownership, I ask: are you enjoying making somebody else wealthy while your own bank balance dwindles on account of rising rent prices?

Now, I understand there are a great many renters in the country who would embrace the opportunity to own their own home, but can’t manage the house deposit – I’m not having a go at you. At least you have ambition. Come to think of it, I’m not even having a go at renters who are content to be tenants for the remainder of their lives; oh no, I’m merely pointing out your folly. For a start, most fortnightly rent charges are well above the average mortgage repayment for the same time period. Even if they one day became level, really, how can a logical person think that pouring money into something that provides no tangible return, is financially prudent? ‘But what about rates’, you say, ‘my landlord pays my rates’. That’s true, he pays your rates every three months – every eight weeks – using two weeks worth of your rent. Good logic. ‘But what about when stuff goes wrong at my house’, you say, ‘my landlord fixes it for me, no worries’. So tell me, wise one, how frequently does this occur? Is he spending upwards of $300 a week amending breakages? ‘Nah, but at least I don’t have to worry about it.’ With that, good sir, I cannot argue. That is a valid point. You pay over $30 000 an annum for peace of mind – unless somebody breaks your window and steals everything from you. Then you have nothing.

Finally, for all you unhappy renters: if the notion of accumulating sufficient money for a house deposit comes across as an insurmountable task, just think. All you would have to do is set aside 100 dollars a week. It might take a while and it might hit you as a gargantuan struggle, but then, nothing in this world ever truly satisfies unless it does result from a struggle. 100 dollars a week. Stop buying crap you don’t need and that amount of money will come easily. 100 dollars a week – more if you can afford it. Everybody buys crap they don’t need, so don’t try to argue otherwise. Also, set up direct debit and for God’s sake, don’t be tempted to check how impressive your accruing balance looks or sounds. At 18 months, a new car might suddenly jump in and take priority.  Don’t do it. Stay firm. If you delve into those funds before they’ve matured, you won’t look back until they’re gone.


Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Uneeded but Discounted

How many people out there know somebody who lives their lives by that corporate adage, ‘The more you buy, the more you save’? Or perhaps you are one of these people..?

Need I point out the flaws in your, so-called, logic? Need I elaborate on my own logic regarding your erroneous consumer methods? Fair enough. Here I go. Example given: you visit the supermarket one pleasant day and despite boundless adherence to your list, find yourself captivated by and forced to buy a variety of other products. But why? You’re such a sensible person.  Problem is, you’ve been taken in by garish packaging, bright signs and flashy labels. Unsurprising. The human brain is programmed to respond to such media and it is only our sense of ‘we know better’ or ‘we cannot afford it’, and use of rationale that enables us to exit the store without over-spending by thousands of dollars. Second example given: a flatmate returns home after a shopping trip with half the items in the bag, being products the flat already has. Asked to explain, the flatmate replies as if talking to a bunch of imbeciles, ‘Well they were on special, we saved like, thirty bucks, course I got them’. Interesting take. Discounted price notwithstanding, these items still cost money; money that the flat mightn’t have been able to afford at the time. The same applies to any flamboyant discount sign – no matter how cheap it may be, it’s never free. Whether we like to believe it or nay, advertising is a massively controlling force on our consumer lives. Brand names command us to buy now and providing they embellish it with enough bright colours and loud noises, the chances are, we will make that purchase just as quickly as we can.

Therefore, when you return from your shopping trip, having purchased twice the amount of produce; subsequently spending ten times the money allocated, it’s not that you are an ignorant shopper – it’s probably not even so much that you are easily led – it’s simply that your desire to not miss out on the best deals, is quite overpowering.

(Reckon the force of that addictive personality must be rather compelling too, yeah?)

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Public Tears

In my experience, when people undergo spontaneous intervals of tangible sorrow, their bodies will tense, their shoulders usually hunch, their chin sometimes dimples, their lips often quiver, speech becomes intermittent, their tone changes becoming choked and less coherent; for females make-up runs as moisture cuts rivulets down cheeks – but most noticeably – primarily if the despondent character stands before an audience, fingers are generally spread as hands are used in a futile attempt to hide their shame and thus, shield their face from view.

Stuffing of fingers in eyes or the periodic wiping away of tears? This kind of display is reserved mainly for movies and television; also for those people who want others to recognise the fact that they are – at least portraying – crying. You see, the instant that somebody lowers his/her head and drags an uncoordinated hand across a cheek or better yet, bungs those bacteria-ridden fingers into the eye sockets, we as the audience, immediately think, ‘Oh, that poor soul, looks like they’re crying’.

Now, think reality. Cast your mind back to the last time you shed tears… was your first thought to make your eyes all bloodshot and puffy by jamming in your fingers? Was it to quickly remove those signs of sorrow before they could exit your eyelids and dribble down your cheeks? Probably it wasn’t. Your first thought would have been regarding the reason for the tears, not the tears themselves; sure, once you feel them breaking loose and running down your cheeks, you would have probably considered wiping, or even drying the eye sockets themselves, but unless you are auditioning for a spot on TV and need to really amplify the effect, why would any genuine crier wipe the tears while they are still innocently wrestling with their eyelids?

Most likely, they wouldn’t. Not in a genuine case of tears, anyway.

The point, around which I have been tip toeing, is that, whenever big shot celebrities put themselves before a camera to deliver an oration or similar; then for whatever reason – usually regret at causing some great scandal on which hangs their entire career and future – apparently ‘break down in a wash of sorrow’, illustrated by the immediate jamming of fingers in eyes and frantic wiping of cheeks – because obviously, if they are truly repenting for their illicit ways, the last thing they want people to see is genuine tears.

Obviously. (Sarcasm tends not to manifest so well in writing.)

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Overweight Flying

I would like to begin by making clear my stance on an indubitably PC initiated, modern day pseudonym. That, is, ‘Overweight’. By definition, relating to a person, overweight is being heavier than is considered proper for that person’s height; thus, overweight, weighing too much. So. Weight. That’s the key word. Fat? That’s another thing. For example, a flabby person, devoid of muscle tone might have a high percentage of body fat, while still being a reasonable weight in relation to their height. I would call this person fat. You might prefer to use the pseudonym, overweight. You would be wrong. They are not overweight, they are indeed, fat.

However, this piece focuses directly on people – regardless of height – who weigh a lot. Now, pay attention and put on your rational face. A 17-year-old boy weighing in at 52kgs, enters an aircraft terminal with 20kgs of luggage; he is followed by his father, a tall, broad man, weighing in at 103kgs, also carrying 20kgs of luggage. (Do not despair, this is not a maths quiz.) Now, the boy places his bag on the scales to be told, ‘That’s fine sir, there is no extra fee’. His father steps forward and does the same, ‘Looks like you boys are good to go then, that’s 600 dollars each’. So, the boy’s total weight is 72 kilograms while the father, in total, carries 123 kilograms. As their bags were similar weights, they have both paid the same fare, for the same trip, but on account of the father’s extra 51 kgs, the plane on which they are travelling, will potentially carry one less passenger. It will now make $600 less because of that one, strapping man. If this same phenomenon takes place, say, 20 times on this flight, that is, on 20 occasions somebody brings with them the weight of another person, that’s 20 lots of 600 dollars on which the airline misses out. Do the math; that’s $12 000 the airline could be using to discount your fare. Alternatively, if the opposite occurs, that makes 20 lots of 51 kilograms’ the plane is travelling light. 1 020 kilograms worth of extra freight that plane could be carrying; money which, again, could be coming off your fare.

As my example has illustrated, I’m not persecuting or discriminating against fat people – the fat isn’t the issue. It’s the weight. Basic physics: when an object is suspended in mid air, supported only by that air, what is its major acting force? There you go. If an airline knew exactly how much weight it was carrying, think how efficient air travel could be; they could carry a precise amount of fuel, they could perhaps load up with extra luggage, they could carry more passengers – the possibilities are endless. In my opinion, charging passengers for their total weight, that is, luggage and person, is the most logical concept I have heard since some clever bugger thought about bagging sliced bread.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Political Correctness

Who is running the world these days – the pansy bloody diplomats or the blue collar realists? I’d like to think the latter. Fortunately I’ve grown accustomed to disappointment over the years.

For instance, when a foreign woman visits the shores of NZ only to be terrified, embarrassed and made to feel completely out of sorts – this is not a welcome, this is an ultimatum; conform to our primitive, pugilistic ways or be gone with you. Then we, as New Zealand high society, have the gall to be outraged..? Come on..? Somebody needs to pull their bloody head in.

Before you try to tell me this is not the almighty PC juggernaut at work, have a think. New Zealand as a country, who once prided itself on free speech, free expression, free protests and just about every other free action could imagine – including nuclear – in latter years has become so ridiculously precious that all anybody needs to do is utter in public the word, ‘Nigger’, and suddenly all hell breaks loose. It isn’t even that anybody really cares; it’s that we think we should care. Freedom of speech? What a crock. Said it before, I’ll say it again: what ever happened to ‘Sticks and stones…’ For God’s sake, words are nothing. They’re in the air. If we don’t want to believe, interpret or be affected by them, we don’t have to. That is our liberty as rational people. But we’re not rational anymore, are we? We as a nation are so tied up with restricting public speech, that this particular right of passage, has been clean forgotten.

Who gives a damn that a broad from abroad wasn’t into rubbing noses with a group of men she had never met? (Is that not what we endeavour to instil in our children – don’t rub noses with strangers…?) Who cares that she was more than a little unnerved by a tribe of big, black, half naked, tattoo embellished men; jumping, lunging in her direction with upsetting facial expressions, brandishing weapons and in general, trying to intimidate their audience? Although I suppose, that is the point of a war dance.

My advice, New Zealand, get the hell over yourself. You are no better than other places and as much as we might like to think it, our culture is not unique. It is intimidating and often grotesque.

Mit Reklaw’s Truth on Alcohol Consumption

Never fear. The last thing I would try to, is impress upon you my wisdom of the detriments of alcohol. Yes, it’s a poison. Yes, it costs the nation millions of dollars every year in additional Policing and the like. Yes, our livers would no doubt thank us if we swore off the stuff – but no. For as long as our idiot Government keeps it legal and freely available, why the hell should we abstain? Same goes for cigarettes. Admittedly, these two products are, unequivocally, drugs. No two ways about it, but they are legal drugs and my God, are they readily available. They are everywhere.

If you will allow however, I would like to focus today’s script solely on alcohol. As I’ve already mentioned, I have no desire to preach or to try and cleverly manipulate your thinking away from alcohol; this piece is intended purely as insight. It might open a few eyes as to the reasons we do things; but before that, let it be known, I have no qualifications in this field other than what I have observed. Also, I am currently a smoker and a big scotch drinker, so I’m about as impartial as they come. If that offends, please leave now.

As I said, insight. Picture this: you work outdoors, the weather’s been uncomfortably warm and humid, you’ve had a physical day; you’re hot, sweaty, tired, fed up and all you want to do is sit down. Yet the first thing you do after walking in the door, is open the refrigerator and crack a nice cold beer. Then you sit down and my God, that beer tastes sweet. You finish that one, you help yourself to another. Then another during you evening meal. Then perhaps another after your meal – because that beer just tastes so damn good – right? Wrong. Beer tastes like shit. Sure, I drink whisky, but come on..? Beer is bitter and leaves an awful aftertaste. Come to think of it, so does scotch. But beer is just so refreshing, right? Wrong. Well, partial credit. If it’s cold of course it’s refreshing, any cool drink is. Like water. Hell, come to think of it, I’ve had a hard day too. Splitting firewood – and not the sissy way either – with a six pound block splitter. So when I’m done, what’s the first thing I do? I pour myself a pint of scotch and ginger ale – half half ratio. Does it taste good? (As I sip it now I’ll admit, it’s an acquired flavour.) So no, not really. But it is refreshing…

People, come on. Wake the hell up. Like I said, water, fruit juice and to a lesser extent, cordial would have the same effect – in fact any liquid substance would do it. So why do we choose beer, or wine, or whisky, or rum, or some other homebrewed concoction with which I am unfamiliar? Is it the refreshment factor… or is it the alcohol? I know, I had some trouble with that myself, but sadly, I must concur. (Well, given that I’m the one speaking, it’s not so much a matter of concurring as it is, just saying stuff.) The point though, is that, while we might think that our bottle of booze is such a wonderful revitalising tonic after a hard day, ultimately, it’s the alcohol that lies within that ‘tonic’ which makes the whole experience so damned appealing. Still don’t believe me? Fair enough, I have difficulty believing myself from time to time; I’m not saying that alcohol is bad, no no, not for a second, I generally can’t get enough of the stuff; it’s simply that I feel people are tending to delude themselves on the matter. The reality is, the alcohol content in our drink is what’s making us feel good about the work we have done, making us feel proud of what we’ve achieved; giving us that rewarding, gratifying feeling of self worth that we as people, strive to harness and are quick to embrace. We choose booze when we want to relax, because it helps us to relax; we choose booze when we want to have a good time, because it helps us to have a good time; we choose booze when we want to be mellow, because it helps us with that, too. Gosh, what a wonderful, versatile beverage God has made for us. (Blasphemy? Perhaps – but what are you gonna do about it?)

On that note, my final word: drink alcohol if you’re into it, enjoy the shit out of it, just don’t kid yourself; be aware of why you are drinking it.