Glassons back down to more social media hostage taking

In case you missed it [more below] N.Z chain-fashion shop Hallensteins Glasson’s recently backed-down to pressure, similar to the one exerted when fat arses hit a chair, over a shop-front mannequin that in the opinion of fat people didn’t represent their unhealthy body-shape.  

Put simply: to achieve the build of the teen model they would have to exercise and stop eating KFC for breakfast.  

Being the same build as an N.Z Olympic female runner, triathlete, rower, cyclist etc. is suddenly offensive to this group who consider they are the epitome of ‘Real Kiwi Women’. 

‘Real Women’ are the ones that have their own ‘red-line’ ratio on the BMI scale.     

Well low and behold Glassons gutless backing in to the ‘fat pride’ contingent has seen them now face complaints by animal rights group SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) in N.Z because it features – horror of horrors – a rodeo. 

Yes, this is the same SAFE that is, in their words, affiliated with international animal advocacy organisations PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) 

That’s the same PETA that is labelled by U.S Counter Terrorism authority as being “# 1 Domestic terrorist group in America.”   

When militant groups hold hostages, the golden rule is to never pay the ransom. 

So when Galssons backed down to one group they were seen as easy prey to push the causes of other radicals, in this case the N.Z affiliate of a group that engages in terrorist activities.  

Next thing the clothing chain will see complaints from the colour blind they can’t see the ‘reds and pastels’ in their spring collection.

The Nepalese community in New Zealand, Kiwi’s over 7 foot who demand want more mannequins to look like them. 

This is what happens when you back down to what is in effect: social media hostage taking. 

 

 

 

 

FAT RIGHTS PRESSURE GROUP DEMONISES BEING SKINNY

 

This week it became official in New Zealand: being skinny is not considered normal.

Fat-rights campaigners have managed to pull from the shop fronts of one of N.Z’s largest fashion retailers mannequins it considers ‘too skinny’.  

For the record my daughter is the same size as one of the ‘offending’ mannequins.   

She is blessed with good genes – mine- plus exercises about 10 hours a week.  

Now let’s turn this travesty of political correctness around to the point the faux logic eats itself. 

The whimpish Hallenstein Glassons decided to put out obese mannequins in their place, fat being the new normal. 

Would they bow down to pressure from a petition from skinny girls “these body images are unachievable”? 

No fucking way. 

The skinny girl who watches what she eats, gets out and exercises is considered to be abnormal in this country.   

 

Doing rowing and triathlon, eating health could lead you to being.....OMG.....skinny! 

In what must be the most absurd health advice ever issued being skinny “sends a potentially dangerous message” according to so called experts, who should have their medical licences terminated for being incompetent and deluded.    

The fat bimbo teen already with an arse the size of a Cook Straight Ferry and thighs any All Black would be proud of is considered normal.  

Let’s be open and honest here. 

Being fat is always unhealthy, not being skinny - except in the extreme of cases where there is an eating disorder.   

It is possible for 90 per cent of the population to get down to a normal build for their body shape. 

Sometimes this normal will even be skinny in the eyes of others. 

The pro-obesity group, fellow fat arses behind the petition to get the mannequins pulled should have asked some doctors “What is healthy build”? 

“Being skinny like this plastic doll or being fat at the age of 18?”  

The answer is clear to anyone except those that most need this advice – the fat bastards and their advocates!     

Shame on Hallensteins demonising teenagers who are skinny and live active, healthy lives.

I will never shop there again.

                  These skinny chicks really need to put on some weight, they are so unhealthy.  

Netball is a fucking stupid game.

 

This point seems to have escaped netball devotees and officials?  

That’s all 10 of them, the global sporting oddity on par with cheese rolling.    

Netball is a fucking stupid game. 

So the prime reason netball remains a chicks sport isolated primarily to the antipodes is again: it is a fucking stupid game.  

No other sport I can think of ‘super glues’ players to 1/3 of the pitch. 

No other sport I can think of makes it illegal for certain players to score. 

No other sport I can think of makes it illegal to even make a spectacular long-distance scoring attempt.  

No other sport makes it illegal for some players to attack and others to defend. 

No other sport I know of makes you stop the moment you get the ball like you’ve been stunned.  

No other sport I know of lets a play have a free shot, unopposed goal attempt in open play.  

Just how many fucking stupid rules and regulations can you put in to one game?  

 

 

Gyms are a largely a waste of time and money.

The reason why people get overweight, unfit is not going to be solved in a gym.   

People don’t need gyms to lose weight or get fit. 

They need motivation. 

Motivation is individual pursuit. 

You can get a small initial boast from outside influences like a mate, doctor’s report but ultimately it boils down to the drive of the individual.    

Exercise makes you fit not flash gyms with rows of expensive machines you are ultimately paying for. 

Even the ones you don’t use!   

Let’s say Person A decided to spend money on a gym membership and a trainer for the first initial 10 attendances. 

Person B decided to invest in a good pair of running shoes, waterproof jacket, a punch-bag and gloves. He also joins a social indoor soccer team.   

Both want to lose weight. 

Let’s also say the gym is 20 minutes away for our guy A.  

Ultimately the winner in the race to lose weight will be the most motivated. 

But B has a huge advantage.  

His training ground is the pavement outside his house, his garage where the punch bag hangs.  

The outdoors is free. 

You are not covering the gym owners rent.   

B also gets to bond with his soccer mates, target the odd 10K run rather than training ostensibly for nothing. 

In the time it takes A to get to/from the gym B can run/walk for 40 minutes. 

Do a 30 minute intense session on the bag, have a shower before A has even swiped his membership card.   

I can hear people say “I need to get away from the distraction at home” 

People like you are doomed to fail. 

Gyms around the globe survive on ‘churn’ like you.    

Being in the outdoors that exists just outside your letterbox, playing in a park, running in a true gymnasium with a wooden floor is always going to beat the static sterile atmosphere of a gym.  

If the weather is adverse use the punch bag in the garage.

Wind-up the stereo with your favourite music not the middle-of-the-road tripe they pipe through gyms.    

Mix it up a bit. 

If you want to use weights buy a cheap set off e.bay.  

On the weekend go for a long walk, run.  

To me gyms are like own a batch/holiday home. 

Ultimately they are expensive for the time you use them, have debatable usefulness, are expensive and commit you to something that one-day you’ll decide isn’t me.  

For 90% of people that join gyms this ‘it isn’t me’ realisation happens within a few months. 

Gyms are for suckers. 

 

 

 

WHY DO WOMEN HAVE CHILDREN TO LOSERS?

Women are far more emotionally centred than men. 

Seeking out love and security, not just for themselves but their offspring. 

So the story goes, but I hate to disappoint you.   

Women have children to dead-beat losers in every city and town on this planet.  

You know exactly what I’m talking about here. 

Shhhh…the Stasi like PC Police don’t like us talking about stuff like this, so let’s do so in hushed tones. 

Nah fuck that!  

Just because a woman is in a relationship with the dregs of society doesn’t mean it’s compulsory for her to spud-out sprogs left right and centre, now does it?   

Brats their biological ‘sperm donor’ benefactor, more often than not, cares little for. 

Brat’s that the mother along with the taxpayer becomes contributors for, whilst loser X is off doing his own thing the same as the day he first met his then partner. 

To a man 'loser men' are never monogamists.  

The thing is: woman know a loser when they see one and seemingly don’t see it as a major issue impregnating them and doing the inevitable runner.     

Crime, alcohol, lack of work accruement don’t normally first manifest themselves in a man in his  40’s.  

They are normally obvious self-evident character flaws from day one.  

9 times from 10 these men were obvious losers from the first date, first time their bitch/skant (employing forms of scum-bag endearment) opened their legs and forgot what day of the month it was.  

So, why do women all-too frequently have children to losers, knowing they are losers?   

 

 

 

Nutters with guns in the U.S are as newsworthy as a car accident in Peru

Sadly people die on New Zealand roads.  

Similarly road accidents happen around the globe resulting in injury and death with the same regularity.  

Unless the death-toll is significant e.g. bus crashes, a road fatality in Austria or India is not newsworthy enough to be reported outside that particular country.   

This is because road-tolls are common-place, an unfortunate by-product of getting behind the wheel.  

Similarly random shootings in the U.S are a by-product of a society that encourages the proliferation of guns.   

The inevitable result allowing anyone with two legs and half a brain to possess a gun, one that often serves only one purpose – killing other humans.    

Little wonder so many nutters run about killing people with guns in the U.S.  

Gun crime that is an aberration in most other countries is ‘hoe hum’ normal in the U.S, has been for decades.  

Therefore shootings in America are not news here in New Zealand any more than a road accident in Peru.   

The media outside the U.S should ‘yawn’ as news of the next gun rampage comes off the cable and put it in the same category as the Syrian civil war, pollution in Mexico City, a flood in a country no one can place on a map.      

Only worthy of reporting outside the United States when a proverbial bus accident e.g. Sandy Hook happens.  

If no one in the U.S cares enough to restrict gun ownership I for one don’t much care.  

 

 

My Sure-Fire Way to Stop the Obesity Epidemic

Lancet researchers found more than 2 billion people worldwide are now overweight or obese.  

That’s right: one third of the humans on the planet are fat and lazy bastards. 

Not one country has been successful curbing the epidemic.

And it won’t be until the media portrays obese people as fat and lazy bastards that this issue will be tackled head-on, the health systems we pay for won't collapse under their ample weight.

As I have suggested previously a policy of social ostracising is one way to get results. 

I am doing my bit to better the health outcomes of my fellow humans by creating these ‘motivational’ posters.

Imagine sitting down and seeing these State-Sponsored ‘messages’ on your television!  

Effective, eh?

 

 

 

 

New Zealand’s Personal Trainers are harming their clients

Here are some staggering statistics relating to gym injuries in New Zealand …. 

One in eight Kiwis belong to a gym (up from one in 11 in 1995)  

Over the same period the number of personal trainers has increased tenfold, from 200 to 2000.  

ACC (accident Compensation Commission) figures show that in just the past five years gym accidents have increased by 330 per cent.

So there’s been a 28 per cent increase in numbers going to a gym and a tenfold increase in punters employing personal trainers has seen a tenfold increase in accident expenditure!  

23,000 claims in 2013 alone, up 10,000 on 2012.  

If this trend continues soon going to a gym will be in the same category as playing a physical contact sport like soccer in terms of injury risk.   

This can’t be explained away as an anomaly.

More Personal Trainers = More Injuries in New Zealand Gyms is what the figures state.

So why do we have this worrisome trend and why aren’t gyms more honest over the perceived benefits versus dangers of using a PT? 

Is it just me or I am right and saying that most personal trainers are aged under 30 years and most of their clients aged well over 30 years?  

It would be ridiculous for say Bayern Munich to employ a coach who was a decade plus younger than the players he’s coaching.  

Most of N.Z’s PT’s are coaching the equivalent of their parents.  

To use the soccer analogy again, imagine the injuries that would be produced if you had a 20 year running the training sessions for a golden-oldies team?   

Gyms, fitness industry should look to quality and not quantity. 

Look to experience like other recreational activities.  

Pay their employees enough so a 40 year old with kids and a mortgage can make a comfortable living, not tweens on low wages, with no responsibility apart from paying back the loan on their car.  

Therein lies the problem. 

An industry in denial and until the gyms/industry trainers admit there is an issue it means gym goers will continue to be injured in numbers that are comparable even to contact sports.  

 

Ceasing the myth personal trainers correlate to fewer injuries is a start.

Since the Morning after Pill doesn’t work for fat chicks, why fuck em’ in the first place?

The most astounding revelation to the news that the widely-used morning-after pills is less effective in preventing pregnancy in woman over 70kgs,  is the salient point Kiwi men are actually having sex with them in the first place. 

Are Kiwi men in New Zealand just not fussy?  

That desperate for sex, or that drunk not to care who they are banging?    

Do they want a brat with a fat 'nameless' bimbo they picked-up at the pub?  

Clearly today's N.Z women care less about their weight than their mothers with the average weight going up 12 kilos in one generation.   

62kgs in sixties New Zealand and now 74 kilos in 2014.   

Use of the morning after pill generally indicates casual sex and the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy.  

The simple solution to the ‘morning after pill’ being rendered a third effective by the women’s weight is for men to not fuck them.   

 

Do society a favour - go home and have wank instead.  

The same applies to women contemplating having sex with fat guys. 

Don’t! 

Let fat people sit on the margins (naturally after strengthening them) of society.  

Then let Darwinsm work its magic. 

In one or two generations – no more fat people!    

Footnote: Congratulations to radio presenter Rachel Smalley calling New Zealand women "heifers" and "a bunch of lardos”. She is dead right and needs industry accolades rather than complaints which will doubtless come from the very same ‘heifers’ she describes. The fatties with time to write letters, consume a packet of biscuits but not to exercise.  

 

 

 

 

Bodybuilders are killing themselves to look good in a mirror + Is your Personal Trainer Killing you?

It’s been widely known for decades, if not centuries Inuit Indians don’t tend to live long lives due to their restrictive food sources, the same with the Massai on the African plains. Too much meat is bad for one’s health, produces higher rates of cancers as well.

Little surprise therefore in the results of adopting a high protein diet from studies undertaken by University of Sydney's Charles Perkins Centre and University of Southern California.  

People on high-protein diets are likely to lose years of life along with the weight they shed, according to these two recent studies. 

The results of adopting a high-protein bodybuilding diet should send shivers down the spines of the personal training fraternity, gym bunnies.    

Those who consume just 20 per cent of their calories from protein were four times more likely to die of cancer or diabetes than other people. 

The risk of cancer adopting a high protein diet is as much as smoking 20 cigarettes a day!  

Surprise, surprise a balanced diet is a key to a long life. 

The bodybuilding, gym industry is massive and pervasive proponents of consuming excess protein – all because there’s a buck in it.  

They point to the market muscles as a positive sign of a person being healthy gulping down protein shakes when the ripped magazine model is just as liable to develop cancer as a result of their unbalanced diet as a person smoking a packet a day.     

Shamefully they are not telling consumers the detrimental effects of undertaking a bodybuilders diet e.g. increased risk of diabetes.      

Personal Trainers concept 'looking better, weighing less' with high protein diets is the key to good health has been shown not only to be a profit driven sham but dangerous advice.

Any gym that cared about their clients should strip the shelves of protein powders and encourage customers to eat more fruit and vegetables.   

Mums, middle-aged office workers etc wanting an extra push in an attempt to lose weight should avoid personal trainers who have bulked-up on protein, since clearly they have no interest in their own health, so why should they care about yours?  

Naïve eve fools that uses a personal trainer that is involved in bodybuilding events in the deluded belief they are fit when they are just the opposite may as well employ one that smokes for what it’s worth.  

 

Besides most bodybuilders are gay men and I wouldn't want one getting too close to me if I could avoid it.    

So gyms that employ bodybuilders as personal trainers, push sales of protein should be shunned since medical research says  they haven't a fucking clue what they are doing when it comes to people’s health.  

 

For someone to undertake a hard-core bodybuilding diet with the full knowledge they are harming themselves best exemplifies the narcissistic nature of bodybuilding. 

Systematically killing yourself to look good in a mirror, appeal to gay men is outright disturbing.   

 

Stop helping Pacific Islanders get even fatter and smoke themselves to death

I am sorry - poor people aren’t obese and they certainly can’t afford smokes.  

Let me re-phrase that statement to emphasis my following points. 

Truly poor people, like those up in Polynesia, shouldn’t be the fattest people on the planet, with an unhealthy perchance for smoking and still receive aid.     

Truly poor people in need of aid from countries like New Zealand don’t, for example, run symposiums focusing on the evils of soft-drink (google: Fizz, Auckland)   

 

 

Around 70 per cent of Western Samoans are obese. 

65 per cent of Tonga is obese. 

In basic terms you get fat by lack of exercise and eating/drinking too much.   

New Zealand gives both Samoa and Tonga close to NZD 20 million a year.  

Without this overseas aid all the countries of Polynesia would collapse.  

For example 40% of Samoa’s revenue comes from overseas donors.       

Governments like New Zealand like to point to tourism, education, infra-structure projects up in the islands being the core recipients of taxpayers money.   

What is conveniently left out of any sanitised Government report on aid are the crippling costs to the island economies having the fattest people, on the planet.

And stop blaming genetics.

Genetics doesn’t force a person to drink shitty soft drinks, eat canned corn beef in favour of more healthy traditional foods.  

Genetics doesn’t make you buy Pall Mall ciggies.    

Compare photos of Samoans, Fijians in the 1800’s with today.  

Since between 10 to 15 per cent (figures I found varied) of the Samoan population have  developed diabetes, these treatment costs alone are the largest part of Samoa’s health budget.   

Then add to this burden heart-attacks, strokes etc.   

Staggeringly only 16% of the Fijian population is aged more than 55 years due to premature preventable deaths.   

62% of Tongan men smoke. 

So much for Tonga ‘needing’ New Zealanders help. 

What for? 

A free carton of Bensons and Hedges for every family?    

And if you are buying smokes it’s way better to grab them off the shelves in say Tonga and Samoa where they are half the price as N.Z because they both don't impose taxes at a level anywhere near  necessary to cover the adverse health effects. 

The Island governments know ‘muggins’ New Zealand will cover the shortfall in cigarette taxes when the smokers end up in their hospital beds.

Being overweight and smoking is a death wish.    

What’s necessary is for New Zealand and other benefactors to employ some ‘tough love’ when it comes to aid in the islands.

 

Give their respective Governments targets to address obesity, bad health decisions or lose funding.

Gambling is not a disease or illness

To a small proportion of society gambling is addictive.

The moment you place the word ‘addictive’ in any statement it is natural to think about heroin addicts, drunks and the like.

Can gambling seriously be compared to the addictiveness of ingesting chemicals in the form of drugs and alcohol?  

For starters it’s patently stupid to tell a gambler they have a disease and “it’s not your actions that are to blame but some misfortune with your make-up”.   

Labelling them diseased means the gambler believes they are somehow rendered powerless.

It places all the blame on this nefarious disease or illness of which medical science has not definitive grasp of and certainly no cure.

There is no definitive study to say “having this gene makes you a gambling addict”.

The only people who call gambling an illness or a disease are those with vested interests: doctors and psychiatrists.

I myself gamble, on the horses.

In fact I lose money on the horses, yet I weigh this up with the entertainment and excitement I get from the exercise.

 

If gambling is a disease - by rights casual punters like me also carry a 'Malaria' type infection and simply don't not know it. 

 

If the disease theory holds water punters like me must also have something in our systems that can resist this 'invader'?  

 

I have yet to meet anyone who wins at the races.

This includes large gamblers.

Everyone, including the problem gambler is fully aware they are losing - only way less so than your average punter.

One of the major differences is a problem gambler has a far greater expectancy to win. 

 

I want to win, I don't expect to in-fact I expect to lose.

 

Now reverse this mental state.  

A decade or so ago having a greater expectancy to take more of the pool would have been called greed, but no-one is allowed to be so blunt nowadays.    

Addictive gamblers hate others winning money they see as theirs.  

 

I love when my fellow punters win big - it gives you hope, it's nice seeing people happy.   

Couple this increased expectancy with an elevated ‘thrill of the win’ and you have addictive issues.   

The problem-gambler therefore places the pleasure they derive from gambling above most of the things going-on in their lives.  

Problem gamblers exhibit narcissistic traits placing their own ‘pleasure’ above the needs of even their children, love-ones, employers etc.   

The adverse results of their addiction are compatible with alcohol and drugs but that’s as far as the connection goes.

Anyone who says gambling is a disease has vested interests or wants to defer the blame away from the real cause.

Oxfam is Not a Good Cause

Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy and creating a world (Oxfam NZ Site)  

I am directing this missive, not just to the Trail Walkers but to anyone who considers giving money to Oxfam.  

Don’t!   

Point One: Oxfam in New Zealand and globally is not an apolitical group.  

Don’t think for a moment Oxfam is a benign neutral charity.     

Oxfam N.Z was set-up by the current Labour Party spokesman on Housing, Phil Twyford.

To further prove Oxfam (NZ) non-neutral political stand-point, their last local Executive Director (Barry Coates) departed his role just before Christmas to run for The Green Party at the next election. 

At one stage Barry Coates was also chair of the Global Campaign for Climate Action.   

So Oxfam in New Zealand does not exist just to feed the poor, that’s just one of their guises.  

Oxfam is a political beast.   

Thinking the money raised by your walk, fundraising is going to a ‘good cause’……..think again!  

Oxfam in New Zealand is neck deep in left wing politics, exhibits an almost pathological hatred of rich people. 

 

The fact Oxfam in New Zealand policies mirrors those of The Green Party is no accident.    

Tax Havens for example are something this charity campaigns on.  

Ironically it’s mostly the middle class and rich Kiwi’s that support Trail Walker Oxfams cause, suckered into thinking their efforts will solely help the poor in The Pacific etc.

Because of it's extreme left wing dogma, donations to Oxfam are but effective in the short term - never treat the root cause [refer: Point Two]

 

It's these middle classes and rich in countries like New Zealand who are the very same demographic Oxfam thinks don’t pay anywhere enough tax.   

Oxfam campaigns locally and globally to see an end to free trade agreements, like the one between China and New Zealand that has enriched all New Zealanders.   

 

China is New Zealand's biggest export market, yet Oxfam (N.Z) want the Government of the day to rip-up our FTA and say goodbye to 9 billion in revenue.  

 

Oxfam also want all New Zealand business’s to pay their employees the Rev Waldegrave formatted ‘living wage’ irrespective of the economics.    

NZD 22.90 an hour for McDonalds bun flippers.    

 

NZD 47,500 P.A for an unskilled worker first year out of school. 

 

Oxfam shamelessly wants to tax New Zealand businesses more. 

Oxfam a so-called charity into helping staving millions has just issued a report that amongst other policies desires more regulations for business’s under the banner of equity and sustainability.   

 

It could be cut and pasted straight from The Greens.    

In September last year Oxfam  slandered all New Zealanders with false statements accusing the (National) Government as effectively shirking on its contributions in in Syria.  

Oxfam’s figures were 4000% out!    

Nor is there anything on Oxfam's sites that addresses the real reasons behind poverty in the Pacific and beyond……

Point Two: Poor people have too many kids!

Using the Pacific as an example here’s the facts (births per 1,000 persons) 

34.3 Solomon Islands

31.1 Vanuatu

30.9 Papua New Guinea

29.7 Naru

26.5 Tonga

24.8 Samoa

 

New Zealand?

14.3!  

That’s right most of the families up in ‘the Islands’ are twice the size as here in N.Z. 

What’s more the average GDP of a New Zealander is USD 30,000. 

The average GDP of a Solomon Islander is a paltry USD 3, 000. 

Papua New Guinea is less!  

Kiwis are subsidising the irresponsible breeding habits of our Pacific neighbours and Oxfam tries to make us all feel guilty for it, prefers instead to blame successful businessmen for not being taxed enough, when there is far easy answer.  

Stop them breeding so much is the logical answer to poverty in the Pacific. 

Any other efforts are literally feeding the issue, in some cases making it worse!

 

Samoa has the fattest people on the planet. 

 

Tonga is a close second.    

 

Oxfam is heavily (pun intended) involved in both Samoa and Tonga.

Imagine suggesting 'interfering with birth control' is a solution to the pinkos at Oxfam?