(by SockPuppet ~ a Libraryatarian blogger)
I cannot believe what all the fuss is over these brave Colombian girls wearing lycra that looks like a bare midriff gone way south – all the way past Brazil if ya get me drift:
A flesh-coloured kit that makes a Colombian women’s cycling team look naked below the waist has been described as unacceptable by the sport’s governing body.
Photographs of the Bogota Humana team were taken at the Tour of Tuscany, showing the six women wearing red and yellow kit with flesh-coloured material immediately above and below the waist.
After the pictures went viral on social media, International Cycling Union (UCI) president Brian Cookson wrote on Twitter: “To the many who have raised the issue of a certain women’s team kit, we are on the case.
“It is unacceptable by any standards of decency.”
Among leading riders criticising the outfits was the Welsh former Commonwealth, Olympic and world road race champion Nicole Cooke.
“This has turned the sport into a joke,” she said.
“Girls stand up for yourselves – say no.”
What a bunch of spoilt sports.
Let the girls show their fake lycra muff if they want to.
They obviously did.
Yeah I think maybe they should “stand up” too by saying “up yours Nicole” and show their real muff – don’t you?
Go the whole hog girls and cut out the middle bit for real.
Just do it. Please.
It would do wonders for the sport.
Dear fellow Earthian,
As you know, the carbon tax will come into effect later this year, and I will have to pay more for my electricity as a result.
As you also are no doubt aware, the reason we are having a carbon tax is because we ended up with a hung parliament after the last federal election. This resulted in the Greens, who received 11.76% of the vote in the House of Representatives, being able to impose a carbon tax when the vast majority of Australians voted for a party against any such tax.
I am writing to you because I believe that you are one of the 11.76% that voted Green at the last federal election, at least partly because you were in favour of what you would call ‘action on climate change’ ie: a carbon tax.
Unlike other taxes I pay, I will not be receiving any services in return for paying the carbon tax. At the last election, I voted against a carbon tax because I didn’t want one. Opinion polls confirm that the carbon tax has been passed into legislation against the will of the majority of Australians.
It may be that I will receive some compensation for the tax from the federal government. However, many Australians will not be fully ‘compensated’, particularly those who lose their jobs as a result of the carbon tax.
Furthermore, the compensation package is increased government expenditure and will exceed total revenues from the tax, even before you factor in the costs of administering this scheme. I will therefore have to pay back much of that compensation in years to come with compound interest.
In the circumstances, I believe that it is only fair that you pay the portion or percentage of my electricity bill that is due to the carbon tax.
Please confirm that you agree to this perfectly reasonable request. Once you have done so, I will forward to you my next electricity bill, along with my bank account details so that you can reimburse me for the cost of the carbon tax.
Yours in fairness,
I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who cycles for fitness and health but by the same token I am rather unflinching in my belief that as a class of road users cyclist are very often a bunch of unmitigated whiners who want the whole world to bend over backwards to indulge them. Take the issue of some rather stupid stickers that are being promoted as something to save cyclists from their own stupidity:
I was a motorcyclist for nearly thirty years and during that time I did my share of “traffic filtering” but I always did it at a most modest pace well aware of the risks that a motorist may at any time do something unexpected. Yet cyclists seem to think that the whole of the motoring public is obliged to bend-over backwards to allow them to behave irresponsibly by riding fast between lanes of traffic on busy city streets. Frankly if cyclists are at risk of running into opening doors and that want the Nanny state to protect them then the solution is to make them stick to the same traffic lanes as cars and to criminalise their mad traffic filtering behaviour.
I seems to me that a better way to save cyclists lives with stickers would be to provide “kill stickers” like those added to fighter planes to remind the Loonies in Lycra that they disrespect the dangers of the roads at their own peril and that ultimately the person responsible for their safety on the road is themselves rather than the innocent motorist who just happens to open the door of their car while some lycra clad loonie is treating the space between traffic lanes as their own private race track.
So how do we get some of these beasts over here?
The art of being able to navigate your way to anywhere by using a map seems to be rapidly going the way of the dinosaurs. If you have a very modern car its likely that it will have some form of inbuilt SatNav and if you have an older model its almost as likely that you will have some sort of device hanging off your windscreen or dash. In keeping with my minimalist motoring Mantra I don’t personally have either but the report that Jeremy Clarkson is to be a voice of Tom Tom’s device does amuse me a great deal:
Anyone have some suggestions as to who they think would make a good voice for a SatNav?
Just imagine some of our political leaders giving voice to these commanding black boxes…
Bob Brown would send you in ever decreasing circles as he insists that “You have to keep turning left, left LEFT!
Julia Gillard would have you doing U turn after U turn ans the voice alternates between “There will be no Carbon tax in the car that I lead” and telling you to “please pay carbon tax now…”
Tony Abbott would just have you heading to the lodge no matter what destination you choose or he would tell you to “Get out of the car and get on a bike after donning red budgie smugglers…”
Come to think about it I think that I will stick with my own sense of direction (which has thus far served me well enough) or when I am unfamiliar with the route to my destination, a real map printed on paper.
“I would do anything for this job. The only thing I wouldn’t do is sell my arse — but I’d have to give serious thought to it.”
There are four reasons why I believe independent MP Tony Windsor was telling the truth about what Tony Abbott hinted at offering in return for Windsor supporting him as PM last year:
1. Abbott’s denial doesn’t sound very convincing:
“People who know me know that I don’t speak like that.
Sure, after the election I wanted to secure government because I wanted to save our country from what was already a bad government and I think that what we’ve seen since then vindicated my judgment.
I engaged in a negotiation . . . but I think that some of the people that I was negotiating with had already made up their minds.”
Hmm, that’s not actually a denial, Tony. “People who know you” weren’t there.
2. He’s a cyclist:
3. The people he hangs out with:
4. He’s sold his arse before:
There is very little that upsets motorist more than seeing cyclists flagrantly ignoring the aspects of the traffic act that are an inconvenience to them. Running red lights or riding on the footpaths are everyday offences by loonies in Lycra and something that I think undermines the notion that cyclists are virtious creatures.
In possession of the £30 penalty and continuing my journey, I did not fume about the police officer’s behaviour. He had politely parroted his script, but knew full well that he was positioned at one of the borough’s best traps for generating maximum cyclist cash while being in no danger whatsoever of coming face to face with a genuinely antisocial pavement cyclist. It was far too early for hoody-wearing teenage boys to be out, weaving between prams and toddlers and shouting into their phones.
It may be an unpalatable truth for some, but there are reasons why cyclists opt for the pavement. Fear of motorists’ behaviour is one and although I empathise I believe the place for cyclists is the road – the more of us in the road the better behaved drivers will have to be.
The second, significant reason for pavement cycling is obstructions in the form of irrationally designed road traffic systems that keep us from riding directly toward our destinations. Chief among these are archaic one-way systems. Who knows how many of these beasts from the recent past exist on this island. Far too many. They may mildly annoy motorists, who sometimes despair about petrol and time being eaten up as they are forced to travel miles in lieu of yards. For cyclists, these complex gyratories are physically and mentally tiring – eating up calories, consuming far too much of the day’s muscular strength, and conjuring up mental images of hamsters and wheels.
Doesn’t it make you somewhat sick that cyclists want to be immune form the laws that apply to other road users? Of course to our friends from the left will defend this flagrant law breaking on the basis of “necessity” just as the writer from the Guardian does but in reality if they want to be seen as virtious from an environmental point of view then they will have to show a great deal more respect for the traffic act as well.