Author: 7 Reasons

7 Reasons Pablo Picasso’s La Lecture Is Not Worth £25M

Last night, Pablo Picasso’s alleged masterpiece, La Lecture, sold at Sotherby’s for just over £25M. Twenty. Five. Million. Pounds. Now, I know art is subjective, but how?! There is so much wrong with it. So much. Let’s start with seven:

1. Lines. Seriously, if I had paid £25M for a painting I would at least expect the artist to be able to draw a straight line. I assume – which given the state of this picture is probably a dangerous thing to do – that the thing behind this girl is a chair. Well what the bloody hell is going on with the top of it? If you struggle to line things up get a ruler. And rulers did exist in 1932. I’ve checked.

2. Perspective. This picture would make much more sense if we could only see one half of the girl’s face. Instead of that we have something that clearly inspired the formation of gypsies.

3. Nose. Good gracious it’s a big one. Too big I would wager. The bridge of one’s nose usually ends in line with the eyes, this poor girl’s nose ends somewhere at the top of her forehead. Which raises two questions. One, is this an accurate portrayal of the young girl? Two, if it is why on earth wouldn’t Picasso have chosen someone better looking? You may think I am shallow for saying that, but paintings do not have personality. They simply don’t. And anyone who says, “I just adore the personality of this piece,” is a prick.

4. Neck. The last time I saw a neck like this, Gladstone Small was playing for England. I am beginning to wonder if Picasso really did like this girl? The big freak.

5. Breast. That’s right, just the one. At least I assume it’s supposed to be a breast. It might well be a ring doughnut. Or a bagel. Or perhaps the fire alarm fell off the wall. I know art is supposed to leave something to the imagination, but this takes the biscuit. Ooh, perhaps it’s a Jammie Dodger.

6. Time + Materials. I think that is a fair way to establish how much a painting is worth. So let’s have a look at La Lecture. These are only rough calculations, but I would guess the following: Time spent painting = eight minutes. Cost of crayons = £3.49. A brilliant artist could probably get away with charging £2,500/hour. Judging by the above, I would say Picasso could get away with charging £2.50/hour. So I reckon La Lecture is probably worth about £3.82. That’s about £25M less than it sold for. It’s a difficult one to explain to the wife.

7. Morals. I question the morality of the buyer here. This painting depicts the image of Marie-Therese Walter, Picasso’s 17 year old extramarital lover. That’s not right. In fact it’s wrong. If Picasso wanted to get his end away with a teenage girl he could at least have had the decency to divorce his wife first. There is no excuse for sleeping behind people’s backs. And, judging by the expression on Walter’s face that is exactly what had happened about five minutes before Picasso whipped out the crayons. By allowing the sale of this painting for £25M what are we saying? It’s okay to sleep around so long as you produce a bunch of distorted lines afterwards? Sad times.

February 9, 2011
7 Reasons That Britain Should Ban Farting. Now!

Malawi is currently blazing a trail in the important field of social hygiene and public decorum. Recently, as I’m sure you’re aware, Malawi’s Justice Minister, George Chaponda, recently proffered legislation that would outlaw farting in public there. This is a brilliant proposition, and at 7 Reasons, we firmly believe that Britain should follow Malawi’s inspired lead and adopt this groundbreaking legislation as our own. Here’s why.

1. Job Creation. The world is in the grip of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and unemployment in the UK is rising. If we were to outlaw public flatulence, however, we would need additional police officers to enforce the new anti-guffing laws. These new officers would be paid for by funds from a central pot, entirely raised by the levying of anti-arse-methane fines which, in a country where chicken tikka massala is the most popular dish, and mushy peas and cauliflower cheese are also commonly consumed foods would surely be substantial. It would also be a more efficacious use of police resources too as, currently, since the relaxing of the minimum height requirement, short policemen and women have been burdened with the task of tackling hardened criminals who tower over them. With the new legislation, however, undersized officers would be more usefully redeployed into the anti-farting branch, where they would be far more effective at flatulence-detection than full-sized officers, who could concentrate on tackling more serious crime. The sort of stuff that occurs around head-height, rather than lower down.

2. Because It’s Disgusting. The most obvious reason to ban farting in public is that it’s disgusting. No one wants the air they breathe to be sullied by it having been filtered through the fetid innards of a grubby gentleman who has seems to have been dining on Fray Bentos pies and pickled eggs for the previous – constipated – week, and with the farting ban, we won’t have to. This fat man can be summarily hauled away by the diddy-police to the fug house rather than being allowed to continue his journey between Kings Cross and York, which is where I encountered him six months ago.*

3. Inequality. Never mind the disputed existence of a glass ceiling in the UK’s wage structure or of gender disparity and ageism in broadcasting, the definitive and most obvious form of sexual inequality in the UK today is apparent in public flatulence. After all, if a man strikes-up an impromptu butt-trombone solo in public it’s seen as ill-mannered, though somewhat comical and not entirely unacceptable. If women break wind in public, however (even pregnant ones, for whom bowel control is more difficult than anyone) it is not seen as remotely acceptable. When a woman lets rip in a public place, monocles pop out of gentlemens’ faces, other ladies gasp and faint, children gape open-mouthed (unwisely) and point: “That lady blew off!” they gasp in astonishment as their parents simultaneously attempt to hush them and shuffle them away from the foul and wretched harridan with the trumping problem. If we ban farting in public, we’ll all have to hold it in and we’ll put an end to this heinous and iniquitous societal inconsistency.

4. Male Grooming. The overall appearance of the British male will be greatly improved as a result of the ban on flatulence. After all, when forced to hold it in while in public environs, he will have to resort – like his countrywomen – to more frequent visits to the bathroom to relax and unwind**. He won’t team up with someone else to visit the bathroom because that’s just weird. But he will see mirrors that much more often and will consequently adjust his hair more, notice dry patches, take note of errant eyebrows and, as he’ll be exposed to more bathrooms than before, he’ll see how the colour of his clothing works in conjunction with a wider variety of hues. The nation will smell better and look better.

5. Control. It’s not just that the entire population of Britain will have to control themselves better (sort of a rectal version of the stiff upper lip that made Britain great), we’ll lessen the occurrence of truly abhorrent instances brought about by a disastrous happenstance involving flatulence and intoxication. Because I was in a busy – and quite respectable – pub once with a group of friends when a man at the next table, who had been imbibing copiously and was now somewhat inebriated, misjudged his attempt at a flatulent emission. Within half a minute or so it became apparent to the entire pub (except, bizarrely, the man himself and the people at his table) what had occurred and, within a minute many people (including myself) were dry-heaving and within two, most of us were on our way to another pub, tears streaming from our eyes. If flatulence were illegal, this sort of thing wouldn’t happen. That was eight years ago, and I haven’t been back to that pub since. This means that premises that clearly enforce the ban will benefit too, so it’ll further benefit the economy by rewarding well-run businesses.

6. Television. Britain and its society was built on snobbery and the class divide and, with this in mind, the ban on flatulence will be a perfect addition to the nation’s laws. Now, having seemingly exhausted the Drunken UK Seaside Towns Shellsuited Fighting genre, ITVs 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 and Sky: Whatever will be able to unleash a new wave of prurient “reality” programmes focussing on what common people get up to while the rest of us are safely at home cleaning our Agas and polishing our brogues. We won’t have to watch grainy CCTV footage of men in short sleeved shirts and shoes that resemble Cornish pasties – or orange women wearing earrings larger than their frocks – fighting at 3am in Blackpool on our televisions any more. We’ll be able to watch them farting. This will reinvigorate a whole tired television genre while retaining its appeal to our own innate snobbery, so the ban will have the effect of enriching the cultural life of the nation while dovetailing perfectly with the national characteristic of sneering at the hoi-polloi.

7. Anarchy. Another of the cornerstones of the British character is that we’re taught that laws are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men. It’s in our heritage to subvert authority and express our individualism by flagrantly flouting the law. So some people will rail against state oppression by freely indulging their bodily urges as a means of protest. These anarchists will fart for freedom; they’ll be freedom farters, gallantly and nobly resisting government by liberally cutting the cheese whenever the fancy takes them. We might not all approve of their actions, but it’ll be a hell of a lot safer than petrol-bombing buildings or throwing bricks at police-horses. And the “Fart For Freedom” posters will be hilarious. In fact, this movement will probably be called the FFF and will doubtless become noted for being insubstantial and puffed up with hot air.*** But don’t worry, they’ll be quite harmless.

*I NEVER forget.

**I can’t begin to tell you how proud I am of that.

***FFF

February 8, 2011
7 Reasons The 2011 ODI Series Between Australia And England Was Really Rather Tiresome

At last! It’s over! England’s tour of Australia finally finished yesterday after being emphatically thumped by the antipodeans in the ODI series. What better way to celebrate it then than to analyse the disaster?

Straussy didn’t look very impressed when his twitter update appeared on the big screen

1. Predictability. I am just as guilty as you are. When the ODI series started, I thought England might have a chance. You can’t argue with history though and to be frank England didn’t even bother trying. Whoever wins the Ashes loses the ODI series. It is a well established pattern and one we should do well to remember next time. As supporters we waste a lot of energy worrying about defeat, it is much healthier to accept the inevitable before it occurs. I’ll certainly be giving it a go next time.

2. Injuries. It seems fairly obvious to me that the more matches there are, the greater the likelihood of picking up an injury. And I mean both mental and physical. In the past few weeks I have switched on the radio seven times to find out the score and each time I have heard a commentator saying it’s been a disappointing performance so far from England. My heart has sunk so many times I am amazed it’s not lodged somewhere around my groinal area. And there’s the physical injuries too. I stubbed my toe walking downstairs to watch the fifth ODI. That just wouldn’t have happened if the ODI series had been over three games. It’s so unnecessary.

3. Future Planning. It amazes me how stupid the organisers of cricket at both an International and Domestic level are. The World Cup should be the pinnacle of One-Day cricket. Surely you would want everyone from every nation fit, firing and ready for one of the major events in the sporting calender? Well, obviously not. Thanks to the organisers, we, the viewer, has less than three weeks to adjust our cricket watching body clock. Instead of programming our bodies to be awake from 3am, we now need to be awake from 8am. That’s a five hour shift! The sooner the organisers realise we are not robots, the better.

4. Motivation. I’ll be honest, to me it appeared as if it was lacking. Once we had watched England win the Ashes* we seemed to lack the appetite for the rest of the tour. Whether we just wanted sleep or we were bored of playing the same team, our hunger had gone. And that’s not good. Not for us or for cricket. Every single time England play we should be desperate to stay up and watch it. So unexcited was I with the spectacle yesterday, that I made up my own game. The plan was to try and get the previous night’s dishes done before England lost a wicket. I lost. Four times.

5. Ponting. Usually, one would be able to take some solace from the fact that, although we lost, at least Ponting didn’t score many. Instead of that, this series we have had to deal with Shane Watson – a player with very limited abilities – twatting our bowlers all over Australia. And if he failed, Mitchell Johnson would do it. Plain silliness.

6. Heathrow Jubilation. If the England team had flown home at the end of the Ashes I would probably have made the trip to the airport to receive the thanks from Andrew Strauss and co for my support. Because of this needless ODI series though, half the team are already back. Even though the Urn will make its way through arrivals tomorrow I don’t think I deserve the thanks of Andrews Strauss anymore. I just didn’t show the commitment to these ODIs that I should have done. So I won’t be going.

7. It Just Was. I’m even bored writing about it now. It just wasn’t very good was it? And quite frankly, no one cares. Which sums up the point of the series quite beautifully I think. Bring on the Ashes in 2013. And 2013/14. And 2015.

*Get in!

February 7, 2011
We’re Here To Help
Hello there. Happy Sunday. We’ve been running 7 Reasons (.org) for over fifteen months now and, while we don’t quite have the internet profile of an organisation such as Failblog, for example, or Wikipedia, our profile has been steadily growing over that time. This means that when people google things on the internet (or use other search engines that normal people can’t name), we often come surprisingly high in the results. Search the terms “kayak across the Pacific Ocean” or “Downton Abbey series II”, and you’ll find that we come on the first page; often above far-better established and well-known organisations that have written about the same subjects. This is down, in part, to a lot of hard work on the back end of the website (the bit behind the curtain that can only be uncovered by a small dog named Toto) and in some cases to dumb luck. What it does mean though, is that we get a lot of web hits from people looking for information that we, as a humour site, are really not best-equipped to help with. But today, as it’s Sunday, as a special treat, we’re going to pick a five of the search queries that people have used to find us and help some of the people that we don’t think we helped much the first time. Yay! Go us.
- “how much is a pet komoda dragon?”
In a sense, we feel that we’ve already helped you. Now, having read our piece you’ll know that “komoda” is spelled Komodo, it ends in an o, and the k is capitalised, as it refers to the island of Komodo. Where we feel that we may have let you down is in suggesting that a Komodo dragon would make an ideal pet. We feel that you, a person trawling the internet, actually looking to buy a man-eating wild animal to keep around the home, may lack the necessary sophistication to understand that when we suggest that ownership of a Komodo dragon may be, “advantageous to the health” and that it is “the ideal domestic animal”, that we are not being earnest. We are being arch and humorous. Do not buy a Komodo dragon. Hope that helps.
- “Can I kayak across the pacific ocean?”
Firstly, well done on your spelling and punctuation, though both Pacific and Ocean should be capitalised. We’re sorry that 7 Reasons You Should Not Kayak Across The Pacific Ocean didn’t supply you with all of the answers you were looking for so, right now, we’re going to help you. We’d like to thank you for your comment, “this was really stupid and i think that this article is not worth anyones time. revise!” and apologise to you. We’re very sorry that we didn’t supply you with the necessary information you needed to plan your cross-Pacific kayaking jaunt (or to find your shift key). After all, you’d gone to all the time and trouble of googling it, so you’d been scrupulously thorough. Here, by way of apology, is a definitive answer for you: Yes, you can. You can cross the Pacific with only a kayak and a paddle and require no additional safety equipment or supplies. And the great thing is that the ideal time of year to make your epic journey is now, so go right ahead! Hope that helps.
- “Hot women not wearing clothes”
Beautifully written, well done. We can’t help but feel though, that our website may have been a disappointment to you – especially as you landed on a piece in which two men extol the virtues of World War II propaganda – rather than seeing the eye-popping images of unclothed lovelies that you were doubtless searching for. Today though, we can help. Though neither of the 7 Reasons team is a hot woman (and we always wear clothes) we can offer you the benefit of our experience. Because both of the team know hot women that sometimes don’t wear any clothes and, in our experience, the key to meeting them involves spending less time trawling the internet for “hot women not wearing clothes” and more time outside; smiling, conversing, making eye contact, being considerate, courteous, perhaps even flirtatious, but mostly not being seedy. Oh, and, even though it’s 2011, flowers and chocolate are still good too. Hope that helps.
- “left sandal means”
While we’re heartened to note that our website comes up second when googling this important and presumably oft-searched phrase, we’re a little baffled by it, and we realise that the piece you found about men wearing socks with sandals didn’t help. So here is help. “Left sandal means” could variously mean; someone abandoned a sandal; a sandal for the left foot; a pair of sandals owned by a one-legged person; you have left Sandal, West Yorkshire (if you’re one of the people that has trouble with capitalisation when using the internet); the financial status of a left sandal; the intentions of a left sandal; you spelled one, or all, of the words incorrectly; you are weird. Hope that helps.
- “Hot women not wearing clothes at all”
Well hello again! Persistent aren’t we. Given how disappointed we imagine you were when you first came upon (though that’s almost certainly the wrong phrase to use) our website, we can only wonder at the prodigious level of your disappointment now. After all, you’ve gone to all the trouble of adding the words “at” and “all” to your Google search and still, there they are, the same (fully clothed) men biffling on about the war. But today, we’re still here to help, so – in addition to our previous advice – we also suggest googling “how to google” and clicking on the first link that you find there. Hope that helps.

7 Reasons will return tomorrow, with humour instead of help. All this selflessness and benevolence really takes it out of us.
February 6, 2011
Guest Post: 7 Reasons That American Football is Better Than Soccer

It’s the first weekend of the Six Nations, so who better to hand the 7 Reasons sofa to than blogger, occasional 7 Reasons guest poster and sports nut, Richard O’Hagan. And what more appropriate subject for him to write about than…oh…the Super Bowl? Which is also happening this weekend. Apparently.

It’s Super Bowl weekend. What do you mean you hadn’t noticed? How could you not notice? It’s the biggest single sporting event in the world. No other event makes an entire country grind to a halt like the first Sunday in February does in America. You want to know how special it is? It’s one of only three days in the year when Americans actually manage to eat MORE than usual – no matter how impossible that might be to imagine.

Yes, all over America, football fans will be doing their best Mr Creosote impressions, barbecuing as if their very lives depended upon it and convincing themselves that they have room for just one more giant pretzel, before settling down in front of the television for the sporting event of the year. Meanwhile, people like me attempt to stay awake until stupid o’clock in the morning, because despite all of the above the Yanks haven’t yet worked out that there are people elsewhere in the world who like to watch the game, too, so they start the game at somewhere near midnight UK time.

And why do I put myself through this every year? Simple. American Football knocks just about every winter game into, if not a cocked hat, then a football helmet. And that particularly includes what Americans call soccer, because:

1. Fat People Can Play This Game, Too. Come on, when was the last time you saw a fat guy playing what, to avoid confusion, we shall also call ‘soccer’? A really fat person, the sort of guy who would make the 1980s Jan Molby look anorexic. I’ll tell you. Never. Even William ‘Fatty’ Foulkes, the fattest man ever to play professional football, was only average size for an American footballer. It’s an all-inclusive sport, you see, and for some positions on the field being 300lb-plus is a minimum requirement. And it is not just being over 300lbs that counts, because every one of those guys can run 40 yards in less than 6 seconds, and most of them do it in close to 5. Go and try that for yourself. Most of you won’t even come close.

2. And The Players Are Educated, Too. There’s one unbreakable rule in American Football, and that’s the one that says that you can’t play it professionally unless you have been to university for at least three years. Proper university. No going to the Mail Order University of Chipping Sodbury. And no studying nonsense degrees such as ‘The History of Popular Music Since the Spice Girls’. There are guys playing football with degrees from Harvard, from Yale and all of the other elite US universities. Compare that to a sport where Frank Lampard is regarded as educated because he has more than one GCSE.

3. Cheerleaders. Yes, I know that some soccer clubs have tried this, but frankly they are rubbish and wouldn’t even make a high school cheerleading team in the States. Football teams have proper cheerleaders, most of whom have also gone to university to train as cheerleaders. When it comes to grinning inanely, clenching your butt cheeks and waving pom-poms, you have to say that football is the best.

4. Lingerie. Sepp Blatter famously wanted female soccer players to wear skimpier kits. Americans have already embraced that idea and the women’s football is played indoors in little more than lingerie and protective pads. Google ‘Lingerie League’ and you’ll see what I mean. You might think it wrong and you might think it demeaning, but it gets a heck of a lot more television than the women’s premier league does and pays better, too.

5. Adverts. One of the biggest whinges about Football is the number of ad breaks, but in fact you hardly notice them (and see reason number six anyway). But look at the players’ kit. Notice anything? Takes you back, doesn’t it? Back to the era before every soccer team sullied their shirts with advertising. Every kit is pure and unadulterated and you can wear your team’s shirt without in some way providing your own endorsement for some evil corporate monolith and their tax-dodgy, peasant-exploiting ways.

6. Beer. You can drink alcohol at football matches. In most stadia they even bring it to your seat. You can’t do that at a soccer match. And even if you don’t have in-seat service you still need something to do during the ad breaks, and what better to do than getting another beer?

7. Hardness. Every time I see a soccer player lying sobbing on the pitch because an opponent breathed on him, I reach for the sick bag. You want to see proper hard men, watch the US game. And do it without whinging about the helmets and padding, because that just proves that you don’t know why they are worn (the explanation is too long for here). Instead, think of someone like kicker Nate Kaeding, who in 2008 played three games without realising he had a broken leg. That’s ‘leg’, not ‘fingernail’, soccer fan.

So go on, give the game a try. Take Monday off work, stock up on pretzels, doughnuts and tasteless beer, and settle down for some American action. It’s better than football.

February 5, 2011
7 Reasons To Play The Brian Moore Drinking Game This Six Nations

Last week you may remember that Marc and I failed to deliver our regular Friday joint post. In an extraordinary turn of events we have repeated the trick this week as well. But that’s fine, because it gives me a chance to have a look at one of the greatest sporting events in the calender. Tonight sees the start of the 2011 Six Nations in Cardiff, with England taking on the Daffodil Nation. I could give you 7 Reasons to watch the Six Nations but I am pretty sure we covered that last year** and to be honest, not much has changed. You shouldn’t need to rethink it. Instead I am going to take a look at the commentators. And in particular the joy former England hooker Brian Moore will be bringing to the proceedings. With his passionate views, the words of Moore make this Six Nations the perfect opportunity to have a tipple. So here it is, the 7 Reasons Brian Moore Drinking Game.

1. Criticism. No matter which country a player is from, if he’s a silly boy, Moore will let everyone know about it. Similarly, if he feels a referee has made a bad decision, we will hear it. So, if Moore labels a player a ‘half-wit’ or brands the decision of the referee as ‘stupid’ you have to drink one finger.

2. Scrum. Given that Moore spent most of his career in the middle of one, I think he has the right to harp on about the issues of scrummaging for 80 minutes. And every time he bemoans a collapse, a reset or a wonky feed, you must drink two fingers.

3. Football. That’s right, every time Moore mentions those nancy boys in that round ball game and their rolling around on the floor antics, it’s time to drink three fingers.

4. Passion. Let’s put it like this, Moore is not entirely unbiased. You get the feeling that he’d quite like England to win. And he’s not exactly scared of sharing his passion for the cause. So every time he shows his blatant England bias, drink four fingers.

5. Anti-French Sentiments. Being a proper Englishman, Moore quite rightly lacks appreciation for all things French. So when he comes out which such gems as, “Looks like he’s injured…I don’t care though, he’s French,” it’s time to drink five fingers. And cheer.

6. Admission. On the very odd occasion that Moore views a replay and admits his initial judgement on proceedings was in fact wrong, you must down the rest of your drink.

7. Cut-off. Sometimes Moore can get so worked up about something that his emotions begin to pour out of the speakers. In the past it has led the producer to pulling the plug on Moore’s microphone. Below is the perfect example of what we are looking for. If this happens it is time to refill your glass and down it in one.

Most of all though, enjoy the tournament! (If you are English).

*7 Reasons does not condone drinking to extremes, so if you feel yourself getting dizzy before half-time you may stop.

**I lied. We did not give you 7 Reasons To Watch The Six Nations last year, our guest writer Rachel did. You can read it here.

February 4, 2011
7 Reasons The BBC Should Find Better Interviewees

You may have read yesterday that Cadbury’s Dairy Milk has been downsized. I didn’t, I read it today thanks to a retweet by regular 7 Reasons guest writer Rachel. If you want to read it, it’s here. I advise you stay here though as I have important words to share. Basically, instead of 140g of chocolate, Cadbury’s Dairy Milk is now just 120g. That’s two squares of Dairy Milk gone. At first I was furious. But as I scrolled down the page I became bemused. The BBC had decided to get the views of the Great British public. And between you and me they didn’t do a very good job. Here’s why:

1. Stereotyping. Imogen looks like a nice girl, but deep down she has been influenced by stereotypical viewpoints uttered all around us. I quote, “Cadbury has been taken over by an American company. You would have thought it would have got larger.” Why Imogen? Because all American people are supposedly fat? Disgraceful.

2. Gibberish. Again, Michael looks like a nice guy. Apart from his earring. That’s silly. But it’s not what he looks like that really bothers me. It’s what he says. I quote, “…i guess if you are into being aware about what’s happening…”. Yeah bro, I’m into being aware. In fact all my bruvs and sistas are. It’s well wicked. Boi-akka-sha. Dear me. It’s not a bloody hobby. You don’t wake up one day and think, ‘You know what, I’m going to get into being aware’. Being aware is a natural state. You either are aware or you are not.

3. Knowledge. If I was to ask you to interview someone for an article I was writing about film piracy, I would hope you would find someone who had an interest in films. Likewise, in this situation, I would have expected an establishment such as the BBC to find interviewees who like chocolate. On the most part they have. But Christian clearly doesn’t. How can he not have a favourite chocolate bar? That’s madness.

4. Observation. Florence looks happy, but she is probably one Caramel short of a box of Celebrations. I quote, “I think they are selling a lot bigger bars now.” Yes love, that’s because you are looking at the King-Size section.

5. Logic. It doesn’t get better for Florence, bless her, “I always feel like the packeted chocolate, I open it up and there’s less than half in the bag.” That’s because you’ve eaten most of it in the queue for the till. And anyway, the only way there can be less than half in the bag is if you’ve eaten more than half. If it’s the first time you open the bag, how can there be less than half in there? How ever much is in the bag – no matter how big or small – it is still 100% of the contents.

6. Memory. Last thing Florence, you say, “I feel like I’ve been robbed. It’s so disappointing.” Judging by that it means it has happened more than once. If you feel like you’ve been robbed and your disappointed in the product, why on earth would you keep buying it? Stop it. Now. You’ll feel much better. That is the 7 Reasons promise.

7. Plonkership. “We can understand why the prices have had to go up like that, but we’d rather it had gone up in price and we got more chocolate, then it would be the same money for less chocolate.” How does that work then? You put the price up yet the price stays the same. You get more chocolate at the same time as getting less chocolate. Genius boys. If you could get in touch and write a guest post explaining why the egg came before the chicken that would be awesome.

February 3, 2011
7 Reasons to Follow @BenicioDToro on Twitter

Hello! It’s Groundhog Day today and, to commemorate that event, we’re going to be doing the same thing that we did on this day last year: Not writing about Groundhog Day. Instead, we’re going to be writing about Benicio Del Toro because, as you may or may not be aware, he’s recently joined Twitter. Here are seven reasons that you should follow him.

1. It Might Be Him. Given the level of interaction that he has with his followers it seems unlikely that @BenicioDToro is the real Benicio Del Toro; after all, most celebrity tweeters have little or no interaction with their followers, with some choosing to interact only with other celebs and some not even tweeting their own stuff at all, leaving it to PR minions. Still, given that it’s Benicio Del Toro that we’re discussing, you might expect him to behave a little differently than say, Paris Hilton or Newt Gingrich. You’d probably expect the unexpected from him. So perhaps it is him.

2. It Might Not Be Him. Fake celebrity tweeters are all over Twitter. Some of them are sad, deluded individuals who contribute nothing of interest to proceedings, and some are brilliant, witty, insightful and passionate about spoofing the people they purport to be, or – for fear of litigation – don’t purport to be. I will say this; if it isn’t Benicio del Toro then, whoever it is, they’re doing a damned fine job. Such a good job, in fact, that they probably deserve to be Benicio Del Toro, replacing the real version. After all, pretending to be someone else is, fundamentally, acting, and if Del Toro is being spoofed then the spoofter clearly deserves the promotion. We should still follow though, because if it turns out that it isn’t really him, British followers will be able to sigh, grumble and rant, and American followers will be able to concoct bizarre law-suits for emotional distress suffered or for mail fraud (whatever the hell that is). Essentially we all win.

3. Interaction. He retweets lots of nice things that people say about him (we’re hopeful that he will retweet this). Hmm, you might be thinking, that sounds a little self-serving, but since I’ve been following Benicio Del Toro, my timeline’s been full of people saying nice things, which is a genuine change from the norm. Usually my Twitter feed consists of “Piers Morgan’s a cock” and “the Daily Mail want to shovel us all into ovens” endlessly tweeted and retweeted. So perhaps positivity and kindness will make Twitter a better place. Or maybe they won’t. He also responds to people. Not just glib, cursory responses, but actual considered, thoughtful ones about acting, upcoming projects and the roles he chooses. He just seems really, genuinely nice.*

4. Be An Early Adopter. If you follow Benicio Del Toro now, you’ll be seen as an early adopter and that’s always cool. Well, unless you’re an HD-DVD-9 user (the HD-DVD-9 user?) or a clog-revivalist in which case it isn’t. And if you’re both of those things you’re really in trouble. Anyway, if you follow him now, you can impress people by saying “I was in the first couple of thousand people to follow Benicio Del Toro on Twitter” or, if you’re not talking to an audience of geeks, you could should keep that quiet.

5. He Follows People Back. This might not sound intrinsically interesting, but for a celebrity tweeter, it’s unusual. It’s also a brilliant spectator sport, because every time he returns to Twitter – and we’re probably not helping here – Benicio Del Toro has many, many new followers to follow back. As this snowballs (and it will), how will he cope? Will he have to give up acting, meals or sleep to spend his time following everyone back? Will he be reduced from a fine actor to a haggard, pallid man sitting in a darkened room dressed only in his underpants endlessly clicking the Follow button as he desperately struggles to catch up? This is more exciting than a soap opera.

It's The Beard!

6. The Beard. Benicio Del Toro’s beard is one of the most awesome, luxuriant, manly examples of facial fuzz there is and we should all see that in our timeline every now and again. For men, it would be inspirational, a paragon of masculine virtue that, if we look at it long enough, might just rub off on us. For women, it would be aspirational, a paragon of masculine virtue that, if they look at it long enough, might just rub on them. Let’s face it, a proper beard is something we all love and if you follow Benicio you’ll see it a lot in your timeline.

7. Quantity. The most surprising thing is not that Benicio Del Toro is tweeting, retweeting and responding to people (after all, that’s how most of us non-celebrities use Twitter), it’s that he’s responding in such quantity to people. He’s tweeting hundreds of times a day. Yes. Hundreds. It must be quite a Herculean task to tweet that often (@7Reasons manages to tweet four or five times a day and there are two of us). And it’s not just the sheer dedication to tweeting that’s amazing, it’s the potential consequences. After all, he’s retweeting things that people are saying about him, and then they’re retweeting his retweets of the things they said about him, and then their friends are replying to the retweet of the retweet – and probably retweeting it themselves – and then they’re following him and saying nice things about him which he’ll retweet and the whole process starts again (but bigger because there’s now a wider circle of people involved). Essentially, BDT (How I wish he had a shorter name) is going to break Twitter and probably the internet as well. And if you follow him, you’ll be the first to know when that happens.**

*The bastard!

**Probably.

February 2, 2011
7 Reasons We Should All Have Our Own Personal CCTV

After yesterday’s big announcement I am sure you were expecting a post about that. Sadly though, I have not had the time to give such a piece the careful consideration it requires, but hopefully we’ll read 7 Reasons Andy Carroll Is Worth More Than Blackburn Rovers later in the week. For now we shall look at a subject that is close to many people’s hearts. Or at least it should be. CCTV. Each and every one of us should have our own personal CCTV. Here’s why:

1. Child Behavioural Device. My Mum always used to scare me by telling me she had eyes in the back of her head. Between the ages of four and six I don’t think I ever stood behind her. It was only when a wasp attacked her hair that I realised she was something of a con artist. The lie though (not to be mistaken with lilo) worked. I was never naughty behind my mother’s back. Just in case a couple of eyeballs popped out. Of course, now that today 7 Reasons has dispelled the ‘eyes in the back of my head’ myth, parents around the land will require a new threat level. And while a mirror maybe substantially cheaper, having CCTV cameras sticking out of various orifices would be much scarier.

2. Adult Behavioural Device. Any kind of assault on another human being will soon become a thing of the past. Firstly, everyone will know they won’t get away with it. Secondly, potential victims will be able to see an imminent attack coming. And all yours for £99 (exc VAT). Sometimes, my own genius scares me.

3. Capture Happiness. There are some moments in life we just want to relive over and over again. Maybe your engagement, your marriage, your divorce or England winning the Ashes*. Whichever it is, with CCTV you can record each of these moments using a multitude of angles and when you wish to remind yourself you can do just that. Now, the question you have for me is probably, ‘Why couldn’t I just use a camcorder?’ Well my answer goes something like this. You can’t spend your life walking around with a camcorder in your hand. It’ll get in the way, you won’t be permitted to watch the school nativity and when you are more than a little worse for wear in Las Vegas you’ll probably lose it before you find a minister. With CCTV being the norm, none of these problems will occur.

4. Image. They say pictures speak louder than words so let me point you in the direction of today’s 7 Reasons image. (That’s the one above). Not one of you can tell me that that guy, who we shall call Bobby, doesn’t look pretty cool. Sure, Bobby’s not wearing his usual sailors outfit, but I can tell you that Bobby feels confident. More confident than Bobby has ever felt before actually. And the world needs more confident Bobbies. Bobbies who will stand in the middle of a riot and happily capture the carnage around them. Not that there will be any carnage because of the CCTV. But at least the Bobbies will capture a lot of people standing around in the same place for a while. They can then upload it to YouTube and call it a flash-mob. Bound to be a hit.

5. Piracy. I think we can all agree that film piracy is a disgrace and a blight on the film industry. The quality is often so poor. With personal CCTV this will change. Given that everyone will have the opportunity to film a film, the pirates will have to use the latest personal CCTV equipment to offer the quality that people will pay for. And that’s brilliant because for your £3 you will no longer get a string of silhouettes going to the toilet, but a film of the quality that the original filmmakers intended. **

6. Forgetfulness. Where did I put the car keys? Where did I put the car? Whose nicked the car park? Am I drunk? The answers to so many questions can be found just by pressing that rewind button. Simple, but beautiful.

7. Social Media Integration. I am sure we all have friends who mention on facebook or twitter that they have just arrived at Selfridges or the Hurlingham Club or the Nou Camp. One day one of my friends checked into Sinagpore Airport at 7pm and three hours later he was watching some baseball in New York. Amazing. But obviously utter bollocks. None of my friend’s have ever checked in at KFC. And let’s be honest I am friend’s with some real pikies. Not in real life obviously, just on facebook. CCTV will identify these pathetic people for the fraudsters they really are by posting live video with every status update.

From The Bahamas, JL.

*Get in.

**In no way do 7 Reasons condone film piracy. It is bad. Very bad. (Though it maybe joked about if you are desperate for a fifth reason).

February 1, 2011
7 Reasons That Sparkling Water is Better Than Still

1. You Can Put Fruit In It. I’m perfectly aware, of course, that you can put fruit into still water too. But if you do that, then you tend to look a bit weird; it looks like a bit of an affectation. But you can put fruit in sparkling water anytime you like without anyone batting an eyelid. It has to be the right type of fruit though, a wedge of lemon or lime, for example. If you chuck a banana in there – or a tomato – you’ll look quite mad.

2. You Can’t Drink It Too Fast. Being carbonated, sparkling water is almost impossible to drink too fast – you just end up full of gas and burping for England (I wonder if people of other nations also represent England when they use this expression?). So, basically the major consequence of drinking too much sparkling water too quickly is a comedic one. But if you drink too much still water too quickly, the consequence is death; from water intoxication. So, sparkling water leads to burping and still water leads to death. Hmm, decisions, decisions.

3. Cats Won’t Drink It. If you pour yourself a glass of still water and leave it lying around then cats will often try and drink it.* Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, you’re probably thinking, my cat’s a loveable and hygienic animal. But wait! How do cats drink? With their horrible, hideous, velcro cat-tongues, that’s how. And what does your cat spend most of its time doing with its horrible, hideous, velcro cat-tongue? That’s right, licking its own bottom. So by sticking its tongue into your drink, your cat might as well be defecating into it. Would you want to drink it then?** Cats don’t do this with sparkling water, of course. Firstly, it often contains citrus fruit (which cats hate), and secondly, in many cases it frightens them (they don’t like getting wet while drinking it).

4. It’s Easier To Find. Ever tried to find a glass of still water in the dark? No, of course not. You probably have more interesting things to do in darkened rooms than finding glasses of water. But I haven’t, and I can reveal to you that sparkling water is far easier to find in the dark than still water, being more easily apparent to the auricular senses.

5. It’s Cooler. Not temperature wise, though I imagine that the freezing point of sparkling water would be marginally lower than that of still water due to the bubbles agitating the liquid causing its transformation to a solid to take longer***. But no, it’s cooler. What would you rather be seen swigging from when cruising down the Via Giulia in Roma in a dark suit or pencil skirt on your Vespa, a bottle of San Pellegrino or a tap containing Severn-Trent?

6. It Effervesces. It moves! Now, moving can be a desirable feature; who among us hasn’t berated a car for not moving at some time or other? And, by way of adding balance, moving can also be an undesirable feature; if you leave the same car in the car park and it moves while you’re away, you’re going to be pretty damned cross. But moving water is good. Because still water stagnates, and moving water doesn’t. Would you drink the contents of a little-disturbed pond? No. Would you drink the contents of a fast-flowing mountain stream? Yes. Movement – in terms of water – is a desirable feature.

7. Aesthetics. I know what I’d rather look at while I’m sitting in my living room sipping water. Yes, the television. But in the unlikely event that I wasn’t allowed to look at the television/out of the window/at the cat/at my right knee/at album covers/at the owl cushions, I’d far rather look at a glass of sparkling water than still water, no matter how deep the latter runs.

*This is assuming you have a cat. If you don’t have one, it won’t attract any.

**No! Why did you even have to scroll down to check the answer?

***Blimey. Science!

January 31, 2011