Video Games: Most played

I am going to post a series of posts related to video games. There is too much to write in just one post, so I have to break it into small pieces.

Today, it's going to be about the video games I played the most. I don't have the slightest idea which games I played how long exactly, so I have to estimate. Maybe you will be surprised...

Most played:


#5: Grand Prix Manager 2 (PC)

This game came out in the mid 90s and allows you to play 10 seasons of formula 1 in a row (why not more???), starting in 1996. There are also scenarios you can play that last for 3 seasons with a fixed goal to reach. But the most fun you get from just playing the 10 seasons mode.

The game includes all (but one) of the official drivers back then. You can hire different drivers for your team, negotiate with potential sponsors, develop technology or steal that technology from another team, build facilities, develop next year's car and compete in racing from the manager's point of view.

The game is not too complicated but complex enough to take me years to figure out some things. For example, test sessions with the car indeed have a very realistic effect, you must spend an enormous amount of money to turn a bad car into a good car.

Getting sponsors is most important and the only thing that will keep you racing. You must attract sponsors big enough to give you the money you need to pay your drivers and staff, but small enough to even be interested if your team is not among the best.

During the course of the game, even the design of the cars changes because of the new technology that's being developed year after year. It's strange looking back when it was actually 2006 (the year the game ends) and seeing how things are different. But that was one good formula one manager game.



#4 Goldeneye (Nintendo 64)

Goldeneye was banned in some countries (including Germany) for its violence. Nowadays you would laugh about that.
It was a revolutionary game for different reasons. It was one of the first games of the "first person shooter" genre, and it was a fun mulitplayer game, and probably the first good James Bond game (considering the last James Bond movie before this game is from 1989).

To me, what made this game worth playing so many hours and even years (over several decades) is the cheat code menu. It's not the normal kind of cheat that is secret and you need to enter it. No, the programmers put a cheat code menu into the game that consists of cheats you can unlock if you finish some of the levels within a time limit. Which is damn hard to manage sometimes.

The cheats include funny stuff like big heads, slow motion or paint ball mode, but also badass stuff like invincibility or the ability to access every weapon of the game. This was what made it so much fun. You could basically stop being James Bond and start becoming something else.

With the Cougar Magnum, you would pretend you were Dirty Harry. With the invincibility mode, you could be the Terminator (with a shotgun or automatic rifle, of course). With invisibility, you could fool the guards who had no idea where the danger was coming from. And with all weapons and infinite ammunition, you could play a "game" I like to call "mine standing" or "mine jumping" - placing explosives under a guard and letting them sky-rocket into the ceiling...what a pleasent view.



#3 Mario Kart 64 (Nintendo 64)

I don't care that this is a Mario game. I have never been a Mario person. More a Sonic person. But regardless of who the main characters are (they might as well be Mickey Mouse and friends), this is a good game, but only a fantastic game in multiplayer mode. I am still playing this game nowadays with my brother. You might think: "Why doesn't this guy play newer versions of Mario Kart?". The answer is: They were never as good. And this is where we come to a vital part of video gaming. A game is not just good because of good graphics or because it has more features. This game was good because of simplicity and shortcuts that the programmers did not even intend to be shortcuts. Some of these shortcuts exploit glitches, others require a huge amount of skill and / or luck.
The game is fun because you never know what happens, but mostly the best player will win. I noticed that in newer versions of Mario Kart, there are no longer unintended shortcuts. And the worst thing: You don't know who is going to win at all. The new games are getting worse and worse. So much shit is flying and exploding across the track that, 30 seconds before the finish, the player in last position can still win the race. But that makes the newer games just luck-based and nothing is based on being just a little bit better. The challenge is gone.



#2 Fifa Soccer Manager (PC)

This football manager simulation starts in 1996. I played this game so many times, you have no idea. I even played this on the very night when Lady Diana died. And even this year, I played it again.

The game is open-ended. It means that, in theory, you can play on and on and on. There is just one glitch that ruins it at some point. There will be a point when all players (that used to end their careers and respawn as young players) will suddenly have their real age again...that means they will be 60, 70, sometimes 90 years old. Then all of them want to end their careers at the end of the season and all hell breaks lose. This can be in the year 2060, or in the year 2095, you can never know. What I do know is I played this game once until deep into the 2080s, so I would have been about a hundred years old if I was a real manager.

The game has an attractive menu design and allows you to buy players from a huge database. You can search for players by name or by abilities, position, country etc. Even the game's programmers exist as players.
Apart from that, you can change your stadium, get a loan from the bank, manage the training of the players, check their statistics, set the tactics, and eventually, watch the matches of your team.
The graphics engine of the matches is not so overwhelming, but certainly okay for the time.

I must admit I have never came across a better football manager game. And that is a testimony of weakness for the gaming industry. All the other games I have played since then either crashed at some point or were not good enough, or unnecessarily complicated to the point where it's no longer fun.

But Fifa Soccer Manager got it right. Sure, some things are missing from today's point of view. There is no youth section in the game, young players just pop up out of nowhere and can be in any team in the world, it's random. The graphics are outdated. It's no longer complex enough. You don't see player faces. And so on. But it's still enjoyable despite some flaws.



#1 The Pokemon series (various nintendo consoles)

Yes, I put the whole franchise here because I could not decide on one game. But if you want the truth: I am fairly certain that I played Pokemon games more hours than any other game in my whole life. That is a statement. When the Pokemon hype came to my country in 1999 (along with M2M, but that is another story although strongly connected to Pokemon), I was already 16 years old. But that didn't stop Pokemon from getting to me. It all started with the red and blue version.

What makes Pokemon so great? More than just one thing, I can assure you. It's not just an addictive game about little monsters that every kid liked. There is much more. The whole idea of it, the whole gameplay, is revolutionary. You are not just one guy jumping around and collecting coins, no. You are the hero of an adventure, at the same time a manager, a hunter, a pet owner, breeder, a challenger for a tournament, and more.

Pokemon are creatures you can catch and use in battles. They grow in levels, learn attacks, and they have elements they belong to. Apart from that, they very much represent animals.

The adventure part is you walking around discovering the area just like in many adventure role playing games. The hunting part of the game is the "gotta catch 'em all" idea. You are encouraged (but not forced) to catch all the Pokemon that exist, and some Pokemon only appear in a very specific place with only a 1 per cent chance of spawning (which can mean you must encounter 100 Pokemon on average to meet the desired Pokemon just once). To get some of them, you even have to trade them with Pokemon from a different Gameboy or even from a different edition (that's why there is always two editions coming out). Some Pokemon are legendary and only exist once per game. If you mess up, it's not coming back. And hell, there are even Pokemon that you can't catch at all unless you use a cheat device or go to some nintendo event in Japan. Can you imagine how many rumours and legends that spread? They added some mystery into the game.

The story mode lets you go from one town to the next where you challenge people and proceed through the game. Even that is enjoyable enough.

The most appealing part though, to me, is the "manager" part. Not only do you decide for yourself which of the hundreds of Pokemon are the best for you to get and use, strategically. There is also a deeper logic involved that, I am sure, more than 95 per cent of the people who played this game are not even aware of.

What I am talking about? It's the way the game is programmed. You can train your Pokemon not only by fighting against the next best enemy that crosses your path. You can max out the stats of your Pokemon by choosing wisely who to fight. You see, every Pokemon has hidden statistics. Some Pokemon that are very strong in the defence, for example, will cause your Pokemon to gain hidden defense points. Let's say your Pokemon also has, by nature, a strong tendency towards defence and it's defence value will grow more than the other values when it levels up. If you only fight Pokemon that give your Pokemon those hidden points, the value increase when levelling up will be even higher than when you fight randomly.

It gets better: You can, in some games, breed Pokemon. You can do more than just put a male and a female of one Pokemon species together. First of all, you can combine some Pokemon species that are compatible. Thus, you can even teach some Pokemon attacks that they would usually never learn. Apart from that, you can breed various eggs to see which Pokemon has the best statistics at the start (they all emerge at level 5, but with differences you may notice and seize for your advantage).

So you see, for a game that's targeted at small children whose first word is "Pikachu", that is a very complex game.

There is just one thing I don't like... it's the fact that they never made the perfect game out of it. They made great games, even fantastic games, especially the first game editions that came out. But with a franchise like Pokemon, you are in the position to make the perfect game. And the perfect game is nothing less but the game that you keep playing and never put away because it's boring. But I will talk about this in another post.

This concludes part 1 of my "Video Games" series. I will post more about games that have a special value to me, the perfect game, and games that totally disappointed. See you next time.

Parents, come forward and confess!

Go to google, search for images and enter "child cry" or something like that. Look at the pictures for 30 seconds and tell me how you feel. Depressed? Stressed? Turned off? Yeah.

A new book was presented at T-online.de, my favourite site for digging up bullshit. Today's recommendation was a book called "Who says that children make us happy?". I was intrigued about the title and expected the merciless confession of parents who have had it with children and would rather go back in time to change their decisions. But I sensed only disappointment when I read the review. The book is obviously written in a "funny" way, trying to make parents laugh about child education. Then, in the last line of the review, it says "not suitable for parents who are in a serious family crisis". And that line basically sums up everything: Let's take it easy, but woah, if you're thinking about divorce or suicide, this book can't help you any more.

Then the book comes up with the usual excuses and false claims:

1. The bipolar lifestyle excuse

This is where the book tells you that being a parent gives you the maximum of both sides. You get more happiness than all the sex, hormones and achievements in the world could ever give you, and you get the biggest shocks, stress and panic that nothing else can give you, not even being stuck in a nightmare with all the horror movie villains you can think of.

What I say about this: What's wrong with mediocrity? Why does life always have to be "on the edge" or "on the limit" or "on the fast lane"? Look at some of the happiest people in the world. They usually live in poor countries, have little to no technology, and some of them meditate a lot and tell you that "desire causes suffering". So sometimes I think that going away from extremes is actually the calmer, better way of becoming happy.

2. The "shrugging it off" excuse

This is the previously mentioned way of making it "funny". You use funny phrases, humour, and just try to take it easy. Hey, it's only lfe, right? It's what everyone does and has been doing. You wouldn't be here if your parents hadn't walked through hell like you are going through hell right now, right?

Here they ignore the fact that you, the parent, are having a serious problem. You don't buy a book just for fun when it's about child education. You are not looking for entertainment. You are looking for help. Is it REALLY just me who can see the connection between three things: Divorce, Child education and more and more spoilt brats treating the grown-ups like shit? It's a deadly triangle.

3. The lie about "life goes on"

Most people who want kids are not fully aware of the consequences they face if they make a child. It is easily said, but hardly realised what it means to make a child. Everything changes. You can say these two words just like that:

Everything

changes.

Yeah. Even if you add "forever", it's only a bunch of words. You don't get the meaning of it. You don't understand what it truly means. You think to yourself, oh yeah, what could go wrong. But only when the child is there you realise how much it depends on you. And you are stuck with the child. For 5 years, 10 years, 20 years... when the child moves out, let's assume for one nano second that it will no longer annoy you with phone calls regarding money, relationship or drug problems... let's assume it is over finally. Then tell me: How old are you now that it's over? How about some "living on the edge" now? Being 50 years old and paying off your mortgage for your family house. Yeah... go and live on the edge, you in the business suit with the bald head.

One thing remains, and it's science: Results from some survey said that couples without children are happier than couples with children. It raises a lot of shitstorms if you walk around with that statement written on your forehead. Don't offend the parents. They don't want to suffer for nothing. Yeah, they do suffer. Acknowledge them, pity them.

I don't like the fact that having children is mandatory, so to speak. When people get married, there is always the question about when there will be children. Our society is eager to make sure everyone goes through this. But I'm officially withdrawing from this pressure. And I know I'm not alone. Whoever feels so happy around children can have children, but I am not ready and I will not let this not being ready cause unhappiness to some child that I create out of some urge of selfishness or making my parents proud. No, thank you.

I love my unborn children too much to let them suffer through this *smiles*.

Instead, I will enjoy travelling the world on behalf of them... I will just have twice the fun *smiles*.

The German national football / soccer team - Rest in peace

Some days ago, the German national football (in the USA: soccer) team was destroyed by a black terminator called Mario Balotelli in the semi-finals of the Euro Cup in Poland and the Ukraine. It was the 4th time in a row that Germany rolled its way into the semis, but also the 4th time in a row that experts had considered the team to be a possible champion.

Since the World Cup in Germany in 2006, Germany lost important games for reasons that seem awfully familiar, and against only two different teams. I will talk about this some more:

2006, World Cup: It was a Cup taking place at home, an advantage that a team only has perhaps once every generation. After some beautiful matches, it was already called a "Sommermärchen" (sommer fairytale) in the media. Against Italy, though, the beautiful style of playing disappeared under a cloud of nervousness and insecurity, and Germany lost to later become 3rd. The German public and media shrugged it off, though, claiming that "a host should not be impolite enough to win his own tournament", and also saying that "the team is so young and has the future ahead of itself".

2008, Euro Cup: Germany played well and scored some really good wins against tough Portugal (3:2) and tough Turkey (3:2 also). This time, they made it to the finals. But being so close to winning the whole thing was too much stress, and they lost against Spain due to a small mistake, but also were never dangerous enough in their offence. So they lost. But hey: The team was still young, a golden generation to grow wiser, and surely next time they might win... because next time was even a world cup!

2010, World Cup: In South Africa, they played their best football ever. First, they destroyed England 4:1, an amazing victory, then killed off Argentina with a shocking 4:0 victory, a total humiliation of a team that was a potential candidate for winning the title. In the semi-finals, the opponent was Spain again. Suddenly, the team became extremely nervous and insecure again, and the style of playing was gone without the other team having to do much about it. Germany lost poorly and was out again. And what did the commentator on the tv channel say (say it with me aloud): "This is such a young team, they still have the future ahead of themselves, bla bla bla".

2012, Euro Cup: The group phase was tough, because Portugal, the Netherlands and Denmark were strong and dangerous. Germany did no longer play as easily and beautifully as before, a sign of decay, but at least they won all of the matches and were taken seriously. Then they got lucky because Greece was the next enemy, and Greece, out of all the teams who made it to the quarter finals, was the easiest to beat and had just been lucky to be there. Therefore, Germany totally killed of Greece, scoring 4 goals, but also having 2 goals scored against them, yet another sign of decay and not being totally focussed.
After that, there was another match that proved to be too much. It was against Italy (the team with the terminator, if you remember). Germany lost in a 0:2 defeat, and the funny thing is that they were so proud and confident before the match, but gave up all this attitude in the game. Also, Germany has never won against Italy in any cup, neither World cup nor Euro cup. Which means: Whenever they won a cup, it was because they did not have to fight Italy. But hey: The team was again the youngest team of the tournament (more young players had joined the squad), and they absolutely do have a chance to win next time, right?

Here is what we can gather from all this:

- The Team often loses due to psychological reasons and not for being the weaker team

- Nobody in the management seems to notice this or, if they do, must be incapable of solving the problem

- The media always talk about "next time" when "this time" and the mistakes made have not even been thoroughly analyzed

- Players who are thought of as leaders turn out to be scared shitless.

And thusly we go to the next point: Leaders. The DFB (German football association) has managed to form a team that is absolutely spineless. They are more a boygroup than a football team. They are smooth and slimey. They are perfect sons in law. They are always good boys, never scream, never disagree with the men in command.  They never smash their fist on the table and tell what is wrong. The same happens on the football field: The eyes are turned towards the ground. Embarrassment. Empty eyes. The body language of losers. And here are some of the big losers:


Mario Gomez

He scored 3 goals in the tournament, more than 20 goals in the German first league last season, and everything works well. The problem: He does not fit into the team. His style of playing contradicts the fast-paced, multi-pass football style that the team has. He is a striker who needs to be served with passes, but does not run much or pass into different directions. He likes to position himself in the right spot, but can be taken out of the game easily. Also, he cares a lot about his hair style and looks down a lot, looking not so self-confident, and he is static. I do not have a problem with him, but he is not the right kind of player for this type of gameplay.


Bastian Schweinsteiger

He is the supposed "leader" of the team. But that is only true if you define a leader as someone who claps with his hands and talks in a loud voice. That is as much as a leader as a loud elephant in a circus. His specialty: Giving interviews. He smiles like an idiot, touches his face in embarrassment, looks down a lot, uses empty words and the like. He never speaks up in any way, seems very shy and insecure. This boy (not man) does not have any balls. I think he is extremely overrated.







Mesut Özil

The ugliest player in the world often looks depressed and has mastered the art of looking helpless. He also likes to fall a lot when being in a fight for the ball, trying to make it look like he was fouled. In his private life, he is famous for his religious stories. Once he had a girlfriend that was already well-known for having relationships with football players (you guess why) and later this woman converted to Islam, officially "out of love for him". This is the stupidest reason for converting to a religion and beautifully contradicts the whole concept and idea of converting. But it did not matter, as Özil and the woman broke up some weeks later. I also wonder: Does this woman still fulfill her holy duties as a muslim woman? Sadly, we do not know. And even more sadly, there are not so many mullahs in this country who might make sure she does.
Özil also once said he feels forced to recite from the quran mentally when the national anthem of Germany is played before a match, because he could not "tolerate" to hear it. For your information: His family originally came from Turkey. He was offered to play for Turkey. Why did he not do it if it is such a big problem for him to hear his own anthem? This guy remains a mystery. We will see where the journey goes for googly-eyed Özil.

Now let us turn things around and look at the players of the past. People that Germany can be rightfully proud of. Guys with balls who say what is going on. Here are just some examples of what Germany really needs: Character.


Lothar Matthäus

Matthäus was world champion in 1990, being the captain of the team. He is famous for always voicing his opinion and being very controversial, but at the same time a strategic genius as a footballer. His private life is often in the news. He is even so controversial that, as a coach, he has not been able to find a job in the German league ever since his active days as a footballer were over. But whatever you say, everyone knows that he was an important factor in bringing the World Cup to Germany for the last time so far.


Matthias Sammer

This former East German played for Germany after the reunion in 1990, just missing the world cup. But in 1996, Germany won the Euro Cup, and he was the leading defence figure. He also won the Champions League with his club, Borussia Dortmund. Later, he was a very successful coach. He is also someone who does not look down or act depressed. Hell no! He also has the charisma of a winner.






Before I mention dozens of other players, let us move on to the monster, the beast, the killer:

Oliver Kahn

He won the Champions League with FC Bayern Munich and was present during the Euro in 1996, although not playing there. If you look at this guy, you probably think: Who the fuck is this weird blonde monster screaming and kicking and strangling and biting everyone? But before you get a wrong impression, apart from his more "emotional" moments, the "Titan", as he was called, was a very professional goalkeeper who was focussed on success and winning. He may have made mistakes in his career (one of which cost him the World Cup in 2002), but at least this guy, yes, he had balls. Strikers all over the world were scared of him. They were so scared they crapped their pants or handed him the trophy on a silver plate. Imagine today, if a small Messi or a skinny Cristiano Ronaldo run towards this big monster... just the way they look and run away before getting their necks broken. You never want to mess with this goal-keeping Gorilla....speaking of which:

I hope we get a few leaders soon. I dont give a shit if they look like monkeys or whether they bring a carpet to pray towards Mekka in the middle of the match, but let it rain balls one more time so that Germany can win a cup again. Thank you!

A new driver is born

The Canadian F1 Grand Prix is over. And a new driver was introduced to us by the German tv station RTL. His name is "Sebastian Grosjean". I didn't know this guy yet.

There is a driver called Romain Grosjean. He became 2nd in that race.... which is strange, because RTL says that Sebastian Grosjean came in 2nd instead. What's going on?

Maybe this Sebastian Grosjean is actually Sébastien Grosjean, a tennis player, who switched jobs with Romain Grosjean... does that mean that Romain Grosjean is now playing a tennis tournament somewhere?

Or wait...wait... maybe this is what happened: Some stoned idiot from RTL was writing a sentence about Sebastian Vettel, half asleep, half on drugs, and then had to delete a few words because he forgot that not Vettel became second (he was fourth) and some other names had to be mentioned. But then he forgot that every driver has his own first name, and Grosjean does not have the first name "Sebastian".

 Several interesting drivers have been introduced to Formula One in recent years:

Alonos (see my June 18 2011 post)
Drive-Through (see my September 28 2008 post)
Welcome to the list: Sebastian Grosjean

Who is going to be the next one?

Here are my top guesses:

Fernando Ferrari
Michael Mercedes
Jensen Butten
Kimmmi Raeikkköonnen

and of course:

Sebastian Kobayashi
Sebastian Perez
Sebastian Senna
Sebastian Schumacher
Sebastian Rosberg
Sebastian Karthikeyan
Sebastian Webber
Sebastian Drive-Through
Sebastian Hitler

the list goes on...

Who sucks the most?

I just read an interview in which a woman from a child organisation said that Germany is not a child-friendly country.

My usual reaction when it's about racism or other negative things about my fellow countrymen would be: "at least it's not me who has this attitude". But in this case, I will proudly declare myself a childhater. Yes, I hate them and I am proud to be part of the childhater movement.

But why?

I could mention a thousand things. Maybe I don't hate children for what they are but for what they have become. And of course there are always exceptions, but you don't wanna hear the boring part, right? Okay, so I will skip this part.

I hate that children are trained to become annoying by the cartoons.
I hate that the parents don't know what the source of this annoying behaviour is.
I hate that laws are made to put different types of child noise into the same category.

A while ago, when the smurfs were on TV and spongebob was not even invented, nobody sued against kindergartens or playgrounds being too noisy. More children were born than today, or at least as many as today. But still something is different today.

Let's talk about child noise in detail:

There is a "happy" child noise. You could compare it to birds singing. It can be annoying and you want to shoot the birds, but somehow there is something natural to it, so you are saying to yourself: "well, that's the way it is and there is nothing too irritating about it".

Then there is the other noise. You can compare it to the persistent, penetrating bitching that occurs when a group of birds feels disturbed by a cat. You know this sound, right? It sounds like a bird that thinks of itself as an automatic gun. But now I'm going too deep into comparisons.

Just one more comparison. This child noise... I think it sounds like the sound a child would make if you put a wooden stick up his ... okay... you get the idea.

Here is the important part: Some children are happy and playful in the kindergarten or playground, and then it sounds rather bearable. But sometimes you hear a high-pitched scream that will burst glass, or a scream that sounds like someone is dying. Or a scream that sounds like someone is arguing in the worst way. This is not natural. This is unnatural. This is where the above mentioned bird would be psychotic. You would shoot the bird out of mercy.

So is Germany not child-friendly? I guess so, yeah. But the hate is directed towards those who put children into this world and don't know a thing about child education. They are careless and think that the society is going to catch their fall. Both their financial fall and their fall into a need for protection. They think: I'm the parent, I deserve this and that. But they don't see the duties connected with being a parent.

And the media? Well, they must make money. You can't ask for anything that can't be measured in money. You can't. Don't expect them to make changes. Today you can't keep a child interested in a smurfs episode for more than 10 seconds. It's not the child's fault. The smurfs are too adapted, too average, too polite (sounds like me). You need a spongebob in your face or some other cartoon hero that can explode or knot his eyes that come popping out of his head.

Another thing I want to complain about: When married persons are forced by their families to produce children. In some societies it's absolutely normal that two people get married and come up with a child within 12 months from the wedding date.
The families cause a lot of pressure. They use all kinds of arguments for the married couple to make a child. Including these:

-Don't make it hard for us. Our relatives are all asking for a baby
-Just do what every generation has been doing
-You need the child to care for you when you're old
-You insult GOD if you don't make a child

Yeah, so without a financial foundation and without any experience as a married couple, you must make a child now! And just forget about the child's needs or the divorce rate.

This is what needs to become better:

-Only make a child when YOU want one
-Ask yourself if you are already confident enough to have a child in your relationship
-Learn how to raise a child and how children use manipulation techniques against you (yes, against you!)
-Learn how influences from the outside stimulate or overstimulate your child!
-Teach your child the skills to become a bearable, not an unbearable part of this society
-Take responsibility for your child and its actions and don't make excuses like "I didn't want a child, my partner/family wanted a child"

If everyone acted accordingly, we would not have a problem. I am sure of that. I won't lie to you though: I know it's hard to be a perfect mother or father. And child education is not easily realised from a theory book. But that is exactly the reason why I don't want a child.

And just so you know: I'm aware of a couple of good things about having children: The sense of humour they develop, the happy days when you sit together at a table eating, talking or playing board games, the happy moments when they learn to ride a bike, when they get married and so on... I know, I know, I know.

In case anyone wants to use the Darwin argument: No, don't. First of all: I won't be able to make everyone think like me. And even if everyone in your country, my country and 10 other countries would stop making children, humanity would not go extinct. Survival of humanity is NOT an argument for having a child nowadays.

Final question to EVERY person who might be reading: Who do you think sucks most in this whole childhood shit?


Children?
Parents?
Relatives?
Media?
The author of this blog?


please comment.

When doctors are helpless

I had to see a doctor today because of my weird medical condition. I had an infection some weeks ago. Throat pain, coughing, headache, pain in my ear. Some of them took several days, others only one day. The pain in my ear only lasted one day, but after that, the pressure on my ear didn't go away completely and my hearing is impaired. I can generally hear in 3D (so to speak) and I can hear certain sound waves on both ears, but some things don't work so well. It also sounds like I'm talking to myself when I speak, and it only affects one ear. If I put a finger into my left ear, both ears hear almost the same sound when I speak.

So I clearly have some kind of problem. It's been going on for over a week. It troubles me to know that I feel healthy apart from that, so there should not be a problem at all!
I went to see a specialist, only to find out that this specialist is clueless about my condition. They did a couple of tests and found out that I can hear most of the stuff. He found out that the outer ear canal is free, so nothing obvious blocking my ear that could be removed from the outside.

So he threw a couple of medical terms at me, one of which translates to "ear problem without a known cause" but still sounds fancy and serious at the same time. Well... it's nice to know that nothing is known about the source and possible healing of my problem. It could go away, and no one knows whether it will or where it came from.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that this time of problem can't be what the doctor said because pain is never part of that particular problem, and I had pain once.

When I left the doctor's place, I had the feeling he had been trying to convince me that I actually don't have a problem, or that most of what my problem consists of is a subjective matter. Well... I only know I'm not making this up, and I know that I can feel what's going on inside my body. Most of all, I can feel that there is something in the inner or middle ear, at least not something that can be removed. But something that blocks my ear from the inside and sometimes increases or decreases the pressure.

I have to do my own healing and hope that it works. It feels strange and I feel disappointed that I have a hearing problem at the age of not even 30. I feel self-conscious in conversations, not very confident, I feel like I have to turn my head to hear with one ear only, or that I have to read lips. So sad.

When I listen to music, it doesn't sound so strange, but when I talk or listen to things in a room, it sounds a little one-sided. And I hate talking to myself more than talking to others when I try to talk to others.

I hope this will go away. I will use an infrared lamp, spray, pills, sleeping on the other side, and so on.

If nothing changes, I can call myself disabled without being officially recognised as disabled. But to be honest, I don't like the idea of one day having to work in a call center (phone service) and having this hearing problem.

My only hope is my knowledge (what appears to be disputed by the doctor) that there is a physical object or fluid that blocks my ear, changes shape, causes a cracking sound once in a while, and that my ear has a different hearing ability at different times of the day. When I wake up, it's different compared to later, or when I shower. When I blow my nose, the pressure becomes very strong and I have to be careful.

What is this problem?

The doctor doesn't know. I either have to live with it or hope for a miracle or self-healing. Science doesn't seem to help me this time.

And this is the year 2012. Not 1899.

Top 6 egoistic and selfless child education attitudes

A lot of negative and positive ideas came to my mind when I think about the reasons, and sometimes, methods, people have or use when they decide to have children. Many times, an egoistic attitude causes a disadvantage in the child’s life. Other times, an egoistic attitude has a positive outcome, but for the wrong reasons. And in some cases, good intentions make everything wrong. But sometimes, good things happen, not for the sake of the parent, but for the sake of the child. I will list here what I mean:

Negative attitudes:

1. “Let’s make a baby” sex

Quoting T-online.de here:

Hardly any other moment in a relationship is as meaningful as the one in which you decide to have a child together. For years, you have been trying to prevent pregnancy with condoms and pills, and all of a sudden you are going for the exact opposite. The mutual wish for a child is also a declaration of love towards one another, because it means that both partners are ready to commit themselves to each other and that they are longing for a visible product of this love and a miniature version of that partner. This is why the “let’s make a baby” sex is incredibly emotional, intimate and romantic.

 My opinion: The article already spoke for itself in a negative way. Pushing aside all the sentimental rubbish, what’s really left? A product and a miniature version of my own partner. When I think of these words, it sounds like things I would be proud of (product  - something I produced) or that I would want for myself (a little toy version of my partner). None of these implicate anything that would show any kind of awareness that there is actually a new being involved. A human being that wants to be acknowledged for its own sake… not to be the new object to make a relationship interesting. Do you also notice that they talk about commitment towards each other but not the new family member?

The “Let’s make a baby” sex is a half-romantic, half-sexual idea that reduces creating a new life to a sentimental and biological concept. It says nothing about responsibility.

2. “I want a child – no matter what”

I’m sure everyone knows a woman who has expressed this idea. Some women are so obsessed over having a child that the idea itself transforms into a static image associated with feelings. The woman does not see the child as a human being that is going to grow, change, and become independent. The only image that is seen is the image of a mother holding her baby – including a lot of pride, self-fulfillment and “mother godess”-ness. The figure of the mother is in the highest position here, and the child is only a means to an end. Therefore, the well-being of the child is not really of any concern, apart from the time when it is a baby and needs to be taken care of the way the mother wants to take care of it. No thought is invested into the idea that this baby in need will also be a toddler in need, a teenager in need, and an adult waiting to move out of the house (or not). The reasons for this attitude are biological aspects, the projection of happiness into the object “baby” and the thought that a woman on her own (with or without a partner) can’t possible become happy.

3. “The state/country will support me” or “my partner will support me”

I’m not sure in how many countries this is the case, but where I live, a pregnant woman will be protected by the country in financial ways if there is no partner around. That itself is not a problem, as well as the possibility that the male partner will financially secure the mother to be. Where it becomes problematic is when the woman decides to “settle down” in this attitude and become lazy.

As an employee in the employment market sector, I know all about it. Many women with big bellies walk in and apply for unemployment benefits – knowing nobody can force them to work once the pregnancy has reached a certain level. Even years after the child was born, the mother will still be able to receive benefits while not being forced to do anything in return. No other person is able to easily receive benefits like that.

Not only the attitude towards the country is a problem, because you could argue that the mother already serves her country by providing a new generation. The real problem is when the mother just throws away everything in this situation. Many of these women I am talking about never graduated from school, nor do they have a job training under their belt (no pun intended). Becoming pregnant and being left by the male partner is nothing to be blamed for, it can happen and it’s not a good behaviour from the man’s part. But slipping into a “victim” constellation by not doing anything to protect oneself, that is stupid.

In the long run, the child suffers. Not only is the mother permanently crippled by her own inability to find a job and the fact that she is bound by her child, the child will always have to live from the state-financed benefits. Clothes won’t be good enough to compete with class mates. Food won’t be healthy enough. Field trips will become a financial risk. The disadvantages will be felt along the way. And who is poor, usually stays poor.

The “my partner will support me” mindset can backfire, too. If a woman depends totally on the partner and then that partner runs off, the woman who was too naïve will be left with a crying baby and no qualification to improve her situation.

4. Self-sacrifice attitude

Every mentally sane mother has some kind of sacrifice instinct, which means she will sacrifice herself in favour of the child if that is necessary. Sometimes, though, it goes much too far. There is an irrational type of self-sacrifice. It is egoistic because it puts one’s desire to improve the child’s situation before anything else, even if more suffering is created than spared. It sounds complicated, so I will give you a simple example.

There is an episode of Dr. House where a pregnant woman has some kind of medical problem. It is not certain whether the baby will live, but for the sake of the woman, the birth of the child must be triggered immediately. There is a good chance that both will survive, but as for the baby, there is no absolute certainty. The pregnant woman completely rejects this approach and insists that she will carry the baby in herself for as long as she can. The husband is totally devastated and can’t believe she is sacrificing her own life, because not having an operation immediately will cause the woman to die soon. The baby’s chance of survival increases by only 5 to 10 per cent (or something like that). Note that the man will have to raise the child alone. Good luck.

5. Living your life through your child

Many parents live with regrets. They are much older and wiser now, so they wish they could go back and “seize the day” to achieve all the things they never had the courage, chance or ability to do. This wish is perverted when parents try to re-live their lives through their children. Suddenly, the child has to become the musician or race driver that the parents never managed to become. I myself remember a situation when my dad literally kicked my ass into a go-cart violently so that I would drive it and become the next Michael Schumacher. From one second to the next, what was first and offer I was not sure to accept became an order I was forced to follow. I didn’t enjoy the ride and felt humiliated and angry.

6. Indoctrination

Indoctrination can ruin a child’s life more than any other attitude listed here. The indoctrination doesn’t just end when the child has become an adult. Most people are not able to free themselves from the religious ideas they were taught. Like a child that was never told that Santa Claus isn’t real, they keep believing the exact same things their parents taught them.

I am not totally against religion in general. It’s a personal thing. But you should be honest: Most parents who are religious don’t give their children a realistic choice of finding out what they themselves want to believe. What to believe and what not to believe is basically predetermined from the craddle.

I don’t mind if people put positive implications into their children’s heads, like the “love everyone” aspect of christianity or the “desire hurts” aspect of buddhism, but many times I notice that religion is used to put pressure on people. Then it’s always about not being good enough, not praying enough, not following the rules enough, or going to hell. It creates enemies, builds walls between people, and spreads hate that can affect nations. Indoctrination is often egoistic, especially when people believe they must pass on religion to their children in order to make it to heaven. And even if the intentions are good, you are putting chains on your children if you threaten them with hell and the judgement of our angry, full-of-rage heavenly Father who is at the same time so lovely and forgiving.

To see Thee more clearly, to feel Thee more nearly….

Positive attitudes

1. Mental and physical health from day one

I recently read that the obesity (or lack thereof) of a pregnant mother determines the number of fat cells a baby will have. And once the fat cells are there, you can’t change their number.

Vice versa, caring about the health of a child is one of the least egoistic things you can do. As a parent, you don’t directly benefit from it. You won’t necessarily see the health. You won’t be able to live long enough to see how old the child can get. And it will also not be so convenient protecting your child from all the sugar and fat that all the other children get from their parents. This little peace of mind you get in return doesn’t make up for the efforts you have to go through. But that’s what makes it so good. Finally, you get to do something that does not feed your ego or bring you an advantage, but the child. There are enough books about healthy living, and it’s best to start early. Who do you think is responsible for what happens at the dentist’s?

2. Passing on wealth

You could argue that a “low motive” is present here: The survival of your offspring. Of course the generation after you has a better chance of survival if you have some money to give to them before you bite the dust. On the other hand, spending that money all for yourself would be even more egoistic. Therefore, passing on wealth is more of a selfless behaviour. Note: Paying for education is absolutely useful.

3. Equality of siblings

There is always some instinct that tells you to treat this or that child better than the other child. When there are three children, the eldest and youngest will have different advantages and disadvantages while the middle one will usually feel ignored.

It takes a lot of effort to treat your children equally. But it’s important to be fair. Otherwise you will raise children who always want to be right, hold a grudge against society or feel overly privileged. Just be fair. It’s for the sake of the children.

4. Supporting the improvement of abilities

Not just a musical instrument or a new language, also the basic abilities are important. Even nowadays, it is still expected of a man to be handy and of a woman to be a good cook. We can’t kill these expectations, but it doesn’t hurt to prepare children for all these things. When they are young, they can learn so easily and with fun. I don’t know why, but my dad never told me that we’re going to repair something, and I was never good at handiness. I learned a couple of things, but could have learned a lot more, without having my childhood taken away from me. Again, it would be so much easier for parents to just sit back and relax, don’t pay for classes and courses and never show children anything new… but yeah… get off your ass and do something.

5. Making the child a tolerable part of society

It doesn’t help our society, nor does it help the parents or the child if the child grows up without any rules, or if the child is dominated into submission with tons of rules. On both extremes of the spectrum, you see behaviour that the society will have to carry on its shoulders later. On one end, you see a rebel grown up that just can’t get used to getting up in the morning and following orders from his boss, on the other end you see an insecure creature that can’t make his own decisions. Not only are these products of education a pain in the ass for everyone who was raised well enough, they also cost us money and we have to bear with them… knowing we can’t act the same way or we will go back to the stone age.

You can but don’t have to put in all the effort, but it certainly helps everyone else.

6. Conveying true values

As opposed to indoctrination, there are some values you can teach a child which will have a positive effect on the later life of that person. This is not about threatening or intimidating. It’s about enhancing the value of life. There are many ways to do this. Teach connectedness with nature, appreciate the goods that our modern age offers, display gratitude for all the food that is available, show the child how other people in this world live (Africa). The goal is to give your child something it can always go back to before it gets too spoilt. It won’t always have to strive for more and it won’t become so annoyed easily. Of course, you don’t have to show your child the true meaning of humility, and you can’t buy anything for it. But just do something non-egoistic once in a while. Please. If you have kids.

Recent losers

Or you could call this post "victims of RSS (Ralf Schumacher Syndrome)".

Remember my posts about this disease? Oh well, let's dive right into it. Let's talk about the most recent cases of sports personalities thinking they are better off than they actually are.

Victim #1: Nick Heidfeld

Nick Heidfeld (pictured here with what appears to be a half-mast "Heil Hitler" greeting) was so convinced he would be back in a racing seat at the top level in motorsport. Yeah... but he never made it back to Formula One. So what is his big comeback after being thrown out of F1? A new F1 team? No. Nascar? No. Champ Car? No. German Touring Cars? No. It's the FIA World Endurance Championship. Never heard of? Well, that's because it's a new series.
Not only did he not come back into a racing car as quickly as he made everyone think he would, he is also basically gone. Vanished. I won't be watching any of his races because I don't even know if any tv channel televises this stuff.

Victim #2: Adrian Sutil

In some way, you can't call him a loser. In another way, you can. He finished in 9th position in the overall championship standings in the F1 season of 2011. But his contract was still not extended, instead he was replaced by Nico Hülkenberg. He then showed first symptoms of RSS, one of them being complacency and overconfidence. Another symptom was "overchoosiness"... I know that's not a real word. What I'm trying to say is, he was in contract negotiations all the time, but nothing seemed to have come out of it. There were even rumours about a possible contract with the legendary Ferrari team, either as a test driver with a future chance of becoming a permanent race driver there, or already becoming the #2 driver behind Alonso if Massa was to be sacked. Well, none of that happened.
On top of that, he was charged for physical assault on a F1 team CEO and was found guilty, receiving a suspended prison sentence and a 200,000 euros fine. Not a good entry in his CV, I think. And probably, that cost him his future in F1. In the end, all the seats in F1 for 2012 were filled, and he was out. There were less talented people who got a place in F1 instead.
In the picture above, you see a happy Sutil who signals how many years in prison he expected but didn't get. Lucky man.

Victim #3: Michael Skibbe

Frowning heavily about being in such a suck-ass company, we see Michael Skibbe, a football coach. He suffers, or rather suffered, from RSS for a short period of time. He was announced as the new coach for the Hertha BSC Berlin football club on December 22nd, 2011. Only 5 matches later, on February 12th 2012, he was sacked after losing all the matches. Before he was sacked, he said that he was going to make things better and that he would "still have a looooong future at this club". Yeah. You see the patterns of RSS? I call this overconfidence and a lack of sense of reality.
I knew from the start this wouldn't go well. I have had this guy on my loser radar for a long time, because he was also unsuccessful in other teams. All he is good at is frown. Yeah, he is a real champion at that.
At least in one way, he is not a loser. And that is in a financial way. It appears that the club bosses were even bigger idiots than he is. For his contract termination, he received a compensation of fucking 500,000 euros, as well as the 150,000 euros he had already earned during his short work in Berlin. In total, that equals 15,000 euros for every single day that he was under contract. Respect... this man must be really worth his money if that's how much he earns.

Health sucks

My colleagues at work show interesting attitudes towards health. Some always need to be right and make others wrong (not prove wrong, just make wrong), others always spread their doubts everywhere and at the same time are very fatalistic about health - saying it's all in the genes and that everything is or can be unhealthy, so you might as well smoke.

It's funny. When I say that I take a lot of vitamins, they try to make me stop it because they heard bad things about vitamins. But at the same time, these are the people who eat unhealthy food at McDonald's and drink alcohol almost every weekend until they get silly. Who talks about those health risks?

At some point I got reminded of my grandmother when one colleague said:"Too much vitamin consumption causes soft bones". Okay... that is the argument killer there. Once you hear such a sentence, you can basically walk away because nothing is going to stop the other one from thinking what they want to think. It's not like you can say "okay, who said that and what's your source?".
And why does it remind me of my grandmother? Because my grandmother also had her "wisdom words" ready all the time. You got a headache? That means you must eat (and nothing else). Oh yeah... I'm not surprised actually that most people in my family are overweight... or wait, isn't that just the genes' "fault"?

These are the things I noticed when it comes to potentially healthy things in a society that is the fattest in the whole of Europe:

-it's always important to voice concerns about changes, even if people's health deteriorates year after year


-you must always come up with something to prove the other person wrong to boost your ego and bring the other person down to the ground to your own level, especially if the other person is reporting improvements with his/her way of doing things.


-you must always believe the media while proving your point even though you know they have reasons for what they say and are not seeking the truth necessarily.

When I weighed 15 kilos more than I do now, I made all the typical mistakes I was taught to make by this society. I did the jogging and drank a glass of grape juice right after that. I ate the whole grain noodles because they are soooo healthy and all the famous sportsmen eat them (or don't they?). Yeah, and of course I never lost weight because all I ran off my body came back to me in the form of sugars. And furthermore, my parents never protected me from bad food when I was a kid.

Here are some questions to consider:

-Why would I not consume extra vitamins in a country that fails at health science?


-What makes factory-produced noodles better or "safer" than the stuff that is in fruits?


-Why is the recommended vitamin intake so drastically different from one country to another?


-Why does the mythical creature called eskimo never die of "carbohydrate insufficiency (sugar deficiency)" although they only eat meat and fish, and why does that eskimo not know heart diseases?


-Why is it always dangerous in the media to consume vitamins and lose weight fast, but it's never dangerous to eat fast food, smoke or drink?


-Why do we as a species even exist today if our ancestors in the stone age had 20-30 times the amount of  (dangerous!!!!) vitamin intake that we have today?And how could they survive without flour, noodles, processed rice and potatoes in most areas?

By the way, there are stories of success that I read about online. Like the story of a female doctor with multiple sclerosis who came back from the wheelchair and was able to ride a bike again. All because of healthy living.
But of course, only good stories are not enough, otherwise every religion would claim to be right... oh wait, they already do that. No... there are also scientific results that document the health benefits of vitamins. Lots of them. But of course, if you only use the ones where things went wrong and not analyse what went wrong and why, then of course you could say that vitamins are dangerous.

And to put things right, some vitamins can be dangerous. On Wikipedia, I read about a guy who drank himself to death with several litres/gallons of carot juice every day. Or some polar expedition guys who ate polar bear liver. Yeah, they actually died and it was the vitamins' "fault"...so shame on me and my satanistic attempts to convince you otherwise.

What it always comes down to is that every single person or company in this world always has a reason besides the truth to say something.

-Ego boost


-profit


-fears of an industry getting extinct

Such industries might be: Sugar industry, flour industry, pharmaceutical industry.

Now sit down somewhere and think about who writes the news stories and how it's all connected. And one more thing: Think about who funds whose campaigns, what those campaigns might be and who these people are who need campaigns... it has something to do with democracy, to give you a hint.

Stating the obvious

Food is the best source of calcium. Oh really? So what?
Eating shit is the best source of shit.
Walking is the best source of using your feet.
How else am I going to consume calcium? By injecting it into my arm?
Yeah, I know, they try to say that it's better to eat calcium in natural food than by using supplements. But you also put that stuff into your mouth. Is there no other way to explain their point in the english language?

Food is always the best source of whatever for humans. Unless we are talking about oxygene. Or perhaps Vitamin D. Yeah, but it's still pretty stupid to say that something that requires eating is best taken from... well... food.

"I don't care" in songs

I don't usually listen to the radio so much. But when I share a car with other people and I'm not driving, it happens that I have to listen to what other people like to listen to on the radio (or listen to their illegally downloaded mp3 files).

When radio stations only play very recent songs, it brings my piss to a boil sometimes. Not only do they repeat what feels to be five songs maybe, the songs also suck. I am already used to pointless lyrics, but sometimes, the "artists" really overdo it with their lack of ideas. And other times, some words are just used to fill an empty space or to rhyme.

The most striking phrase I can think of here is "I don't care", or anything that has the same meaning. You can also say "I don't mind" or "I don't give a shit". I'll explain this in context:

Maroon 5 feat. Christina Aguilera - Moves like Jagger

"You say I'm a kid
My ego is big
I don't give a shit"

Well, while it does make sense in a context, because it describes the personality of whoever, it's still annoying. Especially when you take into consideration that the shit is cut to "sh..." when being played on the radio. Yeah. How badass... Now it doesn't even rhyme any more. On top of that, why is it censored? Well, I guess that's because it was censored from the start as a radio edit. Here in Germany, where I live, nobody cares about lyrics and I think 90 per cent of the people won't even notice what's happening.

David Guetta feat. Kid Cudi - Memories

"It's gettin' late but I don't mind
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind"

The song also has the line "All the crazy shit I did tonight" in its lyrics. I'm sure Shakespeare is rotating in his grave with jealousy. Everyone who wonders why our youth gets more and more stupid with every generation, look no further.

Rihanna - S&M

"Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it"

You don't care about what? That sex is in the air? But when you already say that you like it, then why do you have to say that you don't care? So it's just a filler.
This is my biggest complaint regarding all songs that carelessly use "I don't care": If you don't care, don't sing about it! Why is there so much "I don't care" and "I don't give a damn" in songs if whatever people don't care about is still bothering them enough to bring it into the lyrics.

And here is the bomb:"I don't care what people say". You will have heard this somewhere somewhere. Usually it's uttered by people who act like they are strong and independent (Pink), but deep inside you know they are just hostages of an evil money-making machine that DOES care what people think.

I won't go into further detail about lyrics I hate. I will mention though that I also hate this "ey yo yo" stuff that isn't even words but just "party vocabulary". The one I hate the most is Sean Paul. This guy isn't even singing any more, he is just using his voice in an annoying way. When I hear his voice I have to think of a monkey in a jungle, and that's not a compliment (sorry to all monkeys who read this (yes, I am implying that monkeys become more intelligent while humans evolve backwards)).

"It's a new generation.... of party people"
Fuck yeah...well, I don't care any more.

Health myths - it never ends

The more I read about healthy food and the more I apply rules, the more I notice the contradictions involved. It seems that science isn't much wiser than a hundred or more years ago when people believed in witches, the earth being the centre of the universe and so on. And in fact, why should we believe we are better off, just because we have the internet and the microwave?

Perhaps the biggest myth subject, and mentioned on this blog several times before, is Vitamin C. Does it help during a cold, how much should you take, do you need extra Vitamin C, what is it good for, how much is healthy / unhealthy, the list goes on.

Some time ago, the internet brought up the claim that it doesn't help to consume extra Vitamin C when you have a cold because that doesn't make you recover faster. Well... here is the problem: Define "extra Vitamin C".

There is a recommendation for the daily consumption of Vitamin C. So whenever you hear "extra Vitamin C" or "normal intake" of Vitamin C, it always relates to whatever was established by whoever. That doesn't mean the information you get helps you in any way.

For example, if the recommendation for one person is to consume 100 mg of Vitamin C a day, then there is no surprise if a university finds out that taking in 120 mg during a cold doesn't make a difference, even though that's a 20 per cent raise in Vitamin C intake. But what if some doctors don't recommend 100 mg, but 10 to 30 times as much? Could that make a difference? I guess so, because there is always a study that proves something else.

So here we have lesson number one: Whatever someone proved can easily be proved wrong or to be different somewhere else.

The story goes on. Next issue: The potato. I am astonished to realise that t-online.de started a war on this topic claiming it is now suddenly okay to eat the skin of potatoes or to eat raw potatoes if certain criteria are met, mostly the potato having to be very fresh. Well, I still don't trust it and remembering the hysteria from some years back, potato skin is extremely poisonous and can cause death. Thank you, not interested in trying any experiments.

Then there is carbohydrates... oh hell... I hate this topic. Yes, it's about bread not being so unhealthy at all. The most common claims are these: First: Bread as such doesn't make you fat. Second: Wholemeal bread is better than other bread because it's the "better" carbs that are not so sugary.
My point here: First, bread as such does not make you fat, correct. You need to eat tons of bread before you gain weight, but who eats bread alone with nothing on it? Bread always goes with something else, you know. We don't live in 3rd world countries or in jail where that might be the case. So bread goes with other things that are either very sweet or very fat. And that, combined with the sugar that is in the bread, has the combined effect of making a person fat. In the long run. If they don't do a lot of physical work and eat too much of what they eat.
And about the whole "the type of bread is important" thing... it's still sugar, and one fourth of the population where I live have either diabetes or the stage before diabetes where any kind of sugar is dangerous and therefore it's not healthy.

Second lesson I learn: There is always a lobby for whatever thing is being preached. How do I know? Well... it's the way stories keep spinning. There are bakeries all over the country and bread is staple food, and they market it as being so healthy. But I don't get it. They even say it's healthy because of the fibres... because that helps digestion. Excuse me? If that is the only reason for it being healthy then I'd rather eat nuts, vegetables and fruits because they will give me all that extra shit on top of the vitamins for free.

Another thing: Saying that vitamin pills are dangerous. Yeah, we have all heard the stories. Comparing two groups of people over a period of time to find out that the one that took those pills died earlier than the one that didn't take supplements in the form of pills.

My comment here: Could it be that the ones who took the pills are also the ones who never had time to eat healthy, who only rushed from appointment to appointment and took the pills as a substitute? Besides, yes, I have read what the biological cause can be: Individual vitamins can be dangerous if they appear alone. Vitamin E for example has the task of protecting the body from things that can turn into cancer (I will keep it simple) but can also turn aggressive if not accompanied by Vitamin C. So how do you solve the problem? Easy: With every pill taken, add juice, vegetables or fruits. It also makes the vitamin more efficient.

I'm really tired of all this. Especially since they make it sound so urgent and demanding everytime they "find out" something new. Really, it tires me. Then they are always like "Never do this!" or "Beware of the danger!" and so on. Just stop it...

What are the parties involved here... let's sum it up.

Media: Willing whore of any company or person who is willing to pay enough money to get a message across.

Food production "mafia": Selling their food as staple food, healthy, essential, which it doesn't need to be.

Scientists: They need money, too. And it's always possible to prove something when you only use the studies in which the things happened that you want to prove. Just leave out the other 25000 studies that say the opposite.

Pharmaceutical companies: Trying hard to come up with a cure for everything, always disregarding the natural cure available in food, making everything look esoteric that is not based on scientific facts (see above). I also see a connection between them and the authorities when it comes to recommendations.

The "Authorities": Half-assed state-controlled or half-state-controlled institutes that give out advice and recommendations. Their knowledge is usually based on stuff from the 50s and 60s and if what they said was true, eskimoes couldn't exist (because they don't eat carbs).

Ralf Schumacher Syndrome

Nick Heidfeld is the latest victim of the so-called Ralf Schumacher Syndrome (RSS).

Symptoms: Patient suffers from a deluded sense of self, makes statements that show a rock-solid conviction in his career chances while not noticing the reality of his situation, which is not at all as promising as he thinks.

Ralf Schumacher, as I reported in my blog some years ago, was the first one with this weird "disease". His contract with Toyota was running out, and the formula 1 team did not seem to be interested in extending the contract. Ralf Schumacher was certain that he would find a cockpit in formula 1 for the next season, and even said that it was "guaranteed" he would still be racing the following season. But that didn't happen.

Now Nick Heidfeld has the same problem. In mid-season, he was replaced by Bruno Senna in the (Lotus) Renault team. His first statement, and I quote (from memory): "One thing is for sure: Soon I will be back again, and that on the highest level". Okay, sounds good so far.

The "soon" later turned into "next season". To me, "soon" does not mean the same as "next season" when there were still 8 races to go in the 2011 season when Heidfeld was sacked. But anyway, there you already see the first change in his statements.

Some weeks later, he came up with new things to say, and now note the difference in confidence: "There are still some seats (cockpits), but not many. But as long as there is still a chance for a seat in formula 1, I am going to work for it".

Yes... and here comes the transition from "definitely" to "maybe", from "I will" to "I will try". Another transition will be this: "I am going to work for it" turns into "I'm not giving up yet".

I don't know why it is so difficult for people to just acknowledge that they don't know something or can't guarantee something. Just be authentic and admit that nothing is certain yet. You can't come up with promises when you don't even have a contract.

I only hope for one thing: That this story won't keep haunting me forever like Ralf Schumacher's story. Even years after his unwilling retirement, he kept bringing up how he wanted to return to formula 1. At least Nick Heidfeld doesn't have an older brother named Michael who could return to F1 and cause rumours about his brother.

Another thing worth mentioning: Nick Heidfeld holds the record for most F1 podium finishes while not having won a single race. Yes, he never won a race. And he looks rather tired with his beard and all that. I never really had the feeling that he was very talented, and I have been a formula 1 fan for longer than he races in F1. My guess: He won't make it. Prove me wrong, man.

Disagreements in science

*Sighs*
There is probably no field in science that better describes the ongoing battle between scientists than the field of health and nutrition science, especially with a focus on diets.

I have a book right next to me on my desk from good ol' 2003, written by Dr. Ulrich Strunz, perhaps the most popular media personality in Germany when it comes to a healthy lifestyle.
This book is very well-written and motivating, but has one problem: It gives you the usual advice that turns you off. That jogging is healthy, that you need to eat every fruit and vegetable on the planet to JUST get enough vitamins, and that there are many different things to consider in a diet.

This is the part where you read with keen interest, smile, agree - and still put the book away without further actions afterwards.

But now, it appears, "new shit has come to light", as some might say. I decided to check up on this guy whose book is already 8 years old and see what videos of him might be on youtube. And I must say: Things are different now and much more simple.

He propagated in an interview that there is a switch in our bodies that determines whether fat burning process are "on" or "off". And that switch is flipped either by consuming or not consuming carbohydrates. He says you should stop eating "carbs", as they are called.

Now we get to the point: This doctor knows what he is talking about, he knows how to support his views, and his words make sense. Especially considering that our ancestors many years ago didn't have regular carbs - bread, noodles, etc. - but meat and berries.

The problem is: Half the world (at least) goes a different way. The authorities, as well as a lot of scientists, still go by the "facts" that were established in the 50s, 60s and 70s. And those facts were that carbs are the foundation of the "food pyramid". In other words, that you should base your daily food on bread, noodles, rice, potatoes and so on. "Energy" is the keyword.

We have lived and been indoctrinated by this food pyramid for years in Europe. It is absolutely normal that a meal consists of those carbs, together with some fat and protein sources (the other two major players in the food game).

Some say: Carbs are elemental.
Others say: Carbs are poison, even the reason for cancer, coronary diseases, diabetes and ALL bad things that happen to humans (not including the stuff that Hitler is to blame for).

It gets really confusing to think about it. I'm actually finding myself in the position where I feel obliged to follow the revolutionary, yet minority path. The majority of people are taught stuff that might be outdated. And even worse, opponents of the low-carb diet call it dangerous.

So we have conflicts, just conflicts. All based on studies, surveys, whatever. Another thing Dr. Strunz mentioned, on his website. The fact that science depends very much on capitalism. Making new discoveries is profitable, because that's where funds and prizes come from. But checking up on an old piece of science, checking the validity of something that was already stated a while ago, is not very desirable. Scientists can claim a lot of things, and it would take hard work to prove them wrong, apart from not being profitable. Who wants to pay for a piece of news that just says "oh, that thing that scientist X said, it's only half way true or not true at all". No, the big news papers, the big nobel prizes, the big pharmaceutical companies, they go for the big news. Cure for cancer, cure for AIDS, etc.

It's strange that we (humanity) developed machines that were unthinkable to conceive, like computers. Just because we knew we wanted something that does this and that for us. But at the same time, we have not been able to figure out how food processes work. Anyway, there are so many diets out there that it doesn't get boring trying a new one every week.

Quote of the day:
"Have you ever seen an obese squirrel? Or a deer with asthma?" - Dr. Strunz