Monday 31 December 2018
Sunday 30 December 2018
Saturday 29 December 2018
Wednesday 26 December 2018
Tuesday 25 December 2018
Monday 24 December 2018
Sunday 23 December 2018
Friday 21 December 2018
Thursday 20 December 2018
Tuesday 18 December 2018
Monday 17 December 2018
Sunday 16 December 2018
Saturday 15 December 2018
Friday 14 December 2018
Thursday 13 December 2018
Wednesday 12 December 2018
Tuesday 11 December 2018
Sunday 9 December 2018
Saturday 8 December 2018
Friday 7 December 2018
Thursday 6 December 2018
Wednesday 5 December 2018
Tuesday 4 December 2018
Sunday 2 December 2018
Big Bang Theory Advent Calendar - 1
Didn't manage to open the first 2 doors of this caption advent calendar (or, for that matter, my actual advent calendar). So here goes with door number 1:
Friday 30 November 2018
From The Mind of Merc - Profundity
Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about profound moments – the moments when realisation strikes us like an epiphany and leaves us awestruck. Here are the best ones I’ve found on my travels through the internet. Once you’ve got to grips with one, feel free to move on to the next one.
And finally,
- Every book you’ve ever read is just a different arrangement of 26 letters
- The only time the word incorrectly isn’t spelled incorrectly is when it’s spelled incorrectly
- The 2 ee’s in Bee are silent
- The first teacher ever never went to school
- Using a computer to buy a new one is the equivalent of getting it to dig its own grave
- To dinosaurs, we live in a post-apocalyptic future
- To your stomach, all potatoes are mashed potatoes
- Everything we eat is processed sunshine
- Your shadow means that light that has travelled 93 million miles has been deprived of reaching the ground by you
- Nighttime is the natural state of the universe and daytime is only caused by a nearby, radiating ball of flame.
- Going to bed so you’ll feel better in the morning is the human equivalent of turning off and on again
- Today is the oldest you’ve ever been and the youngest you’ll ever be
- There will never be any more people older than you than there are right now
- The person directly in front of you also the person furthest behind you
- A different version of you exists in the minds of everyone who knows you
- You’ve never looked at your own face
- Everyone sees world in unique way – their death = death of that world
And finally,
- There was a time when your parents put you down and never picked you up again
Monday 26 November 2018
Bored - !!!NEW!!!
For all those who clock-watch at work or feel that time somehow goes slower between 9 and 5. This is for you.
Spoiled Bored not by Joss Stone
I really thought that I'd be better in a new job
And while that’s not completely wrong
The dullness that I’m experiencing right now, it makes my heart sob
And it’s been going on for far too long
See I thought that I wanted out but
Now I’m in a different rut
So I wrote a new song
Because I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is it’s just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
I tried to tell myself that there’d be more to do in a month or two
But sadly that was 'bout a year ago
I've never known boredom so as complete as this, I just feel so blue
And my mind has got nowhere to go, oh no
Because I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is it’s just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
And no matter how hard I try to I simply just can’t
Believe that this job is meant to be full time
There ain't no way I'm getting more to do
I don't know what I am going to do
I’m yawning, snoring, cos I know it’s true
I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is is just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
I really thought that I'd be better in a new job
And while that’s not completely wrong
The dullness that I’m experiencing right now, it makes my heart sob
And it’s been going on for far too long
See I thought that I wanted out but
Now I’m in a different rut
So I wrote a new song
Because I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is it’s just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
I tried to tell myself that there’d be more to do in a month or two
But sadly that was 'bout a year ago
I've never known boredom so as complete as this, I just feel so blue
And my mind has got nowhere to go, oh no
Because I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is it’s just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
And no matter how hard I try to I simply just can’t
Believe that this job is meant to be full time
There ain't no way I'm getting more to do
I don't know what I am going to do
I’m yawning, snoring, cos I know it’s true
I'm bored at my job yeah
No matter how I try to pass the time
Just can’t seem to occupy my mind
I'm bored at my job yeah
The work there is is just too slim to last
How much I wish to make the time go fast
I'm bored
Sunday 11 November 2018
Albert & The Cannon - !!!NEW!!!
Today marks the 100th anniversary of the armistice of the First World War.
100 years ago today, 4 years of bloodshed and strife finally ended and the world knew peace once more.
In honour of this, I have penned a parody piece of an infamous monologue by a great British comedy actor.
Albert & TheLion Cannon not by Stanley Holloway
There’s a famous place in France called The Somme,
About as much fun as Verdun,
Where Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom
Were soon to send Albert, their son.
A grand little lad was young Albert,
All dressed in his kit; what a guy
With a gun with a bayonet on it,
The finest the gov’ment would buy.
They didn’t think much of the fighting:
The war, it was fiddlin’ and small,
There was no news of anything dreadful,
Fact, nothing to fear of at all.
So, thinking no more of the danger,
They sent off their son to the front,
To fight for his king and for his country,
A risk but maybe worth a punt.
There were one great big cannon called Wilhelm;
The spiller of many men’s blood-
It lay behind German defenses,
With its base many feet in the mud.
Now Albert had heard about battles,
How they was ferocious and mad-
To see No Man’s Land looking so peaceful,
Well, it didn’t seem right to the lad.
So straightway the brave little feller,
Not showing a morsel of fear,
Took his gun with a bayonet on it
And charged ‘cause he thought the coast clear.
You could see that the Germans didn’t like it,
They fired Wilhelm at Albert’s head,
Their aim was unfortunately spot on,
And down fell the little lad dead.
Soon Pa, when told of the occurence,
And didn’t know what to do next,
Said “Mother! Yon cannon’s killed Albert”,
And Mother said, ‘Well I am vexed!”
Then Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom-
Quite rightly, when all’s said and done-
Complained to the army commander,
That a cannon had murdered their son.
The Major was quite calm about it;
He said “Oh, I’m sure it’s a joke.
How do you know it’s your boy that’s been killed?”
Pa said “How’d I know? Here’s the note!”
The General had to be sent for.
He came and he said “What’s all this?”
Pa said “Yon cannon’s killed Albert,
And we thought that they always miss.”
The Mother said, “Right’s right, young feller;
I think it’s a shame and a sin,
For a cannon to go and kill Albert,
We don’t have another like him.”
The General wanted no trouble,
He tried to send them both away,
Saying “Don’t bother me with this matter.”
And Pa said “Oi! Can’t you hear what we say?”
Poor Mother had got a bit upset
When she thought that her Albert had gone.
She said “No! Someone’s got to be summonsed”-
So that was decided upon.
Then off they went to the enquiry,
In front of the Magistrate bloke;
They told ‘im what happened to Albert,
And proved it by showing the note.
The Magistrate gave his opinion
That no one was really to blame
And he said that he hoped the Ramsbottoms
Would have further sons to their name.
At that Mother got proper blazing,
“And thank you, sir, kindly,” said she.
“What waste all our lives raising children
To feed ruddy cannons? Not me!”
100 years ago today, 4 years of bloodshed and strife finally ended and the world knew peace once more.
In honour of this, I have penned a parody piece of an infamous monologue by a great British comedy actor.
Albert & The
There’s a famous place in France called The Somme,
About as much fun as Verdun,
Where Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom
Were soon to send Albert, their son.
A grand little lad was young Albert,
All dressed in his kit; what a guy
With a gun with a bayonet on it,
The finest the gov’ment would buy.
They didn’t think much of the fighting:
The war, it was fiddlin’ and small,
There was no news of anything dreadful,
Fact, nothing to fear of at all.
So, thinking no more of the danger,
They sent off their son to the front,
To fight for his king and for his country,
A risk but maybe worth a punt.
There were one great big cannon called Wilhelm;
The spiller of many men’s blood-
It lay behind German defenses,
With its base many feet in the mud.
Now Albert had heard about battles,
How they was ferocious and mad-
To see No Man’s Land looking so peaceful,
Well, it didn’t seem right to the lad.
So straightway the brave little feller,
Not showing a morsel of fear,
Took his gun with a bayonet on it
And charged ‘cause he thought the coast clear.
You could see that the Germans didn’t like it,
They fired Wilhelm at Albert’s head,
Their aim was unfortunately spot on,
And down fell the little lad dead.
Soon Pa, when told of the occurence,
And didn’t know what to do next,
Said “Mother! Yon cannon’s killed Albert”,
And Mother said, ‘Well I am vexed!”
Then Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom-
Quite rightly, when all’s said and done-
Complained to the army commander,
That a cannon had murdered their son.
The Major was quite calm about it;
He said “Oh, I’m sure it’s a joke.
How do you know it’s your boy that’s been killed?”
Pa said “How’d I know? Here’s the note!”
The General had to be sent for.
He came and he said “What’s all this?”
Pa said “Yon cannon’s killed Albert,
And we thought that they always miss.”
The Mother said, “Right’s right, young feller;
I think it’s a shame and a sin,
For a cannon to go and kill Albert,
We don’t have another like him.”
The General wanted no trouble,
He tried to send them both away,
Saying “Don’t bother me with this matter.”
And Pa said “Oi! Can’t you hear what we say?”
Poor Mother had got a bit upset
When she thought that her Albert had gone.
She said “No! Someone’s got to be summonsed”-
So that was decided upon.
Then off they went to the enquiry,
In front of the Magistrate bloke;
They told ‘im what happened to Albert,
And proved it by showing the note.
The Magistrate gave his opinion
That no one was really to blame
And he said that he hoped the Ramsbottoms
Would have further sons to their name.
At that Mother got proper blazing,
“And thank you, sir, kindly,” said she.
“What waste all our lives raising children
To feed ruddy cannons? Not me!”
Wednesday 31 October 2018
From The Mind of Merc - Driving Licences
Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about driving licenses.
The tests for these are becoming infinitely more difficult and, while I understand the reasoning behind this, for me there are still 2 inherent flaws in this approach.
Firstly, driving lessons (in the UK) still do not include motorway driving as a mandatory aspect. What this means is that provisional or newly qualified drivers are effectively told that although they have no experience of driving on 3-4 lane roads at speeds of around 70mph and all the inherent hazards etc. this entails, it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
For me, this borders on madness. What part of driving round a roundabout, or travelling along a dual carriageway equates to the busier, faster, (some might say) more pressured environment of a motorway? How can someone who’s never been on a motorway be safe to do so? Answer: They’re not. New drivers are placed or permitted to travel in highly dangerous environments with no knowledge or experience of dealing with them. Does that seem safe to you?
(I stress in the UK as in European countries such as Germany this is part and parcel of learning to drive – which makes much more sense.)
Secondly, the emphasis is on placing additional requirements on ‘NEW’ drivers. But there are millions of ‘OLD’ drivers who have not passed these additional requirements and yet are still apparently equally safe on the roads. How can that be? How can someone with less training or experience be just as qualified (or safe) as someone who has?
Drivers who qualified before 2002 did so without undertaking Hazard Perception tests. Drivers who qualified before 1996 did not even have to take a theory test. (And drivers prior to 1935 or who learnt during the Second World War required no test at all!) Yet, apparently they are just as safe as those who do undergo these additional precautions.*
Add to this the fact that the older drivers are automatically allowed to drive vehicles much larger than anything of which they have any experience simply because they passed a plain (and, it could be argued, dated) driving test. And the danger rises.
Again the removal of this right is a restriction that has solely been placed on new drivers which, again, does not make sense. If newer, more recently trained and honed drivers are not safe in trucks, vans and lorries, then why are older, non-highly trained drivers?
And to those who say older, means more experience a) that should mean they have no issue taking the additional tests to ensure or prove their safety on the roads and b) experience counts for nought in high-pressured situations – everyone makes mistakes.
There should not be double standards when it comes to safety.
Either someone is safe to drive on the roads without those additional tests, or they are not.
And practice of driving on multi-lane roads at accelerated speeds should be a necessary requirement before someone is classified as being qualified to drive.
And for anyone who raises the ‘inconvenience’ of putting the older, less strictly tested drivers through the same tests to ensure they are of the same safe standard. I would consider the physical and emotional pain of the experience and consequence of a car crash to have significantly more importance.
Safety is more important than bureaucracy. Being accident-free is more important than admin. Lives should not be endangered for the sake of a bit of red tape that is supposed to protect them.
*To be clear I do not mean to besmirch these drivers. They may be perfectly good, perfectly skilled. My point is the hypocrisy of determining new drivers need this additional training which older, existing drivers do not.
The tests for these are becoming infinitely more difficult and, while I understand the reasoning behind this, for me there are still 2 inherent flaws in this approach.
Firstly, driving lessons (in the UK) still do not include motorway driving as a mandatory aspect. What this means is that provisional or newly qualified drivers are effectively told that although they have no experience of driving on 3-4 lane roads at speeds of around 70mph and all the inherent hazards etc. this entails, it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
For me, this borders on madness. What part of driving round a roundabout, or travelling along a dual carriageway equates to the busier, faster, (some might say) more pressured environment of a motorway? How can someone who’s never been on a motorway be safe to do so? Answer: They’re not. New drivers are placed or permitted to travel in highly dangerous environments with no knowledge or experience of dealing with them. Does that seem safe to you?
(I stress in the UK as in European countries such as Germany this is part and parcel of learning to drive – which makes much more sense.)
Secondly, the emphasis is on placing additional requirements on ‘NEW’ drivers. But there are millions of ‘OLD’ drivers who have not passed these additional requirements and yet are still apparently equally safe on the roads. How can that be? How can someone with less training or experience be just as qualified (or safe) as someone who has?
Drivers who qualified before 2002 did so without undertaking Hazard Perception tests. Drivers who qualified before 1996 did not even have to take a theory test. (And drivers prior to 1935 or who learnt during the Second World War required no test at all!) Yet, apparently they are just as safe as those who do undergo these additional precautions.*
Add to this the fact that the older drivers are automatically allowed to drive vehicles much larger than anything of which they have any experience simply because they passed a plain (and, it could be argued, dated) driving test. And the danger rises.
Again the removal of this right is a restriction that has solely been placed on new drivers which, again, does not make sense. If newer, more recently trained and honed drivers are not safe in trucks, vans and lorries, then why are older, non-highly trained drivers?
And to those who say older, means more experience a) that should mean they have no issue taking the additional tests to ensure or prove their safety on the roads and b) experience counts for nought in high-pressured situations – everyone makes mistakes.
There should not be double standards when it comes to safety.
Either someone is safe to drive on the roads without those additional tests, or they are not.
And practice of driving on multi-lane roads at accelerated speeds should be a necessary requirement before someone is classified as being qualified to drive.
And for anyone who raises the ‘inconvenience’ of putting the older, less strictly tested drivers through the same tests to ensure they are of the same safe standard. I would consider the physical and emotional pain of the experience and consequence of a car crash to have significantly more importance.
Safety is more important than bureaucracy. Being accident-free is more important than admin. Lives should not be endangered for the sake of a bit of red tape that is supposed to protect them.
*To be clear I do not mean to besmirch these drivers. They may be perfectly good, perfectly skilled. My point is the hypocrisy of determining new drivers need this additional training which older, existing drivers do not.
Thursday 25 October 2018
I Can't See Clearly Now - !!!NEW!!!
Another one that originated with the opening line coming into my head. This is the result:
I Can See Clearly Now I Can’t See Clearly Now not by Johnny Nash
I can’t see clearly now the beer has gone
I can’t see any obstacles in my way
And a dark fog now obscures my mind
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Oh no - I can’t take it now the booze is gone
All of the bad feelings have reappeared
Where is that peace that I was drinking for?
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Looking around, there’s nothing but drunk guys
Pain in my head, nothing but drunk guys
I can’t see clearly now the beer has gone
I can’t see any obstacles in my way
And a dark fog now obscures my mind
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Oh, no, really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
I can’t see clearly now the beer has gone
I can’t see any obstacles in my way
And a dark fog now obscures my mind
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Oh no - I can’t take it now the booze is gone
All of the bad feelings have reappeared
Where is that peace that I was drinking for?
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Looking around, there’s nothing but drunk guys
Pain in my head, nothing but drunk guys
I can’t see clearly now the beer has gone
I can’t see any obstacles in my way
And a dark fog now obscures my mind
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Oh, no, really don’t feel alright (right) right (right), I don’t feel ok
Thursday 18 October 2018
Former Fairest of Them All - Mercorabilia
Time for another alternative Disney ending. This time, what if Snow White had paid more attention to the lives of her housemates.
Evil Queen: Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Who is the fairest of us all?
Magic Mirror: If truly the fairest you seek, over your shoulder take a peek.
Evil Queen: What the-?
Snow White: Hello.
Evil Queen: Snow White! What are you doing here?
Snow White: What you mean in my father’s castle – which I technically own now he’s dead.
Evil Queen: Well, I- he- you-
Snow White: Let me save you the trouble. You see – after your assassination attempt (cute huntsmen by the way), I just happened to come across these 7 dwarves who took me in and in exchange for my bed and board they hired me as their housekeeper and cook while they went out working all day.
Evil Queen: Really.
Snow White: Yes. So anyway, one day I decided to ask what they did all day and it turns out they spend their whole time digging up tons and tons of these sparkling – and highly valuable - gems.
Evil Queen: They what?
Snow White: Mmm. Which they weren’t actually using for anything so, naturally being quite hot in the brains department as well as beauty, I thought I might as well put these to good use.
Evil Queen: Oh, yes. How exactly?
Snow White: Well, you know those guards of yours who you told to make sure I didn’t enter the castle under any circumstances.
Evil Queen: Yes.
Snow White: Well, long story short, turns out I pay better than you do so now they work for me.
Evil Queen: Damn.
Snow White: Yeah. Guards!
Guard: Yes, your majesty.
Snow White: Take away this former fairest of them all and lock her away in the highest room of the tallest tower.
Guard: Why would we put her there?
Snow White: I don’t know – it just sounds good.
Guard: Is she to just have bread and water?
Snow White: Oh, no – that would be cruel. Tell you what – she can have this apple as well.
Sunday 30 September 2018
From The Mind of Merc - Ocean's 11
Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about Ocean’s 11.
To be clear – I love this film. It’s smooth, suave and very clever. But there’s one part in it that completely lets it down. It’s a fairly major plothole that occurs during the movie that no-one has ever explained* (and it seems few have spotted) which, for me, puts a dampener on the overall polish of the film.
It is this (SPOILER ALERT):
During the heist itself, Danny, Linus and Yen are in the vault when Rusty makes the call that alerts Benedict to their presence - prompting him to call the SWAT team - in which he ‘offers’ to let Benedict keep half the money if he will let them take the other half which apparently is then sent up in the lift in several black holdalls, taken out of the casino by Benedict’s men and then loaded into a van which is then tailed to the airport and – ultimately – proves to be full of flyers for prostitutes.
Here’s the issue:
Neither Danny, Linus nor Yen carried anything down with them to the vault that would have concealed these flyers, there was nothing placed in the vault that would have contained them (according to the plan) and it couldn’t be that the flyers were in the ‘SWAT team’s bags as the team went down AFTER the flyers came up.
This means that, unless Danny is some kind of mutant or teleporting magician, there is no way those leaflets could have got into those bags (and, consequently, into that lift). Accordingly, there would have been nothing for Benedict’s men to take out to the van to be eventually blown up as a distraction and the only way they could provide the full bags that were placed in the lift to be collected would be to sacrifice half the money – as they threatened.
Otherwise their whole scheme would have been blown and they would have got absolutely nothing.
Watch it again and tell me I’m wrong.
* I’ve since discovered that even the director, Steven Soderbergh, can’t explain it!
To be clear – I love this film. It’s smooth, suave and very clever. But there’s one part in it that completely lets it down. It’s a fairly major plothole that occurs during the movie that no-one has ever explained* (and it seems few have spotted) which, for me, puts a dampener on the overall polish of the film.
It is this (SPOILER ALERT):
During the heist itself, Danny, Linus and Yen are in the vault when Rusty makes the call that alerts Benedict to their presence - prompting him to call the SWAT team - in which he ‘offers’ to let Benedict keep half the money if he will let them take the other half which apparently is then sent up in the lift in several black holdalls, taken out of the casino by Benedict’s men and then loaded into a van which is then tailed to the airport and – ultimately – proves to be full of flyers for prostitutes.
Here’s the issue:
Neither Danny, Linus nor Yen carried anything down with them to the vault that would have concealed these flyers, there was nothing placed in the vault that would have contained them (according to the plan) and it couldn’t be that the flyers were in the ‘SWAT team’s bags as the team went down AFTER the flyers came up.
This means that, unless Danny is some kind of mutant or teleporting magician, there is no way those leaflets could have got into those bags (and, consequently, into that lift). Accordingly, there would have been nothing for Benedict’s men to take out to the van to be eventually blown up as a distraction and the only way they could provide the full bags that were placed in the lift to be collected would be to sacrifice half the money – as they threatened.
Otherwise their whole scheme would have been blown and they would have got absolutely nothing.
Watch it again and tell me I’m wrong.
* I’ve since discovered that even the director, Steven Soderbergh, can’t explain it!
Tuesday 25 September 2018
The Waitress and the Frog sketch - Mercorabilia
Today another alternative
ending to a Disney classic. This time Tiana uses some common legal sense to
prevent disappointment... and considerably shortens the running time of the
film.
Tiana:
Everything looks peachy-keen, Mr Fenner and Mr Fenner.
Mr
Fenner 1: We’ll have all the paperwork ready to sign, first thing after Mardi
Gras.
Tiana:
I’ll do you one better. Why don’t we put something on paper now so you can’t go
and signed the place out from under me.
Mr Fenner 1: Oh, well, I really don’t think that’s necessary…
Tiana: I insist.
Mr Fenner 2: You drive a hard bargain, Tiana.
(Mr Fenner pulls out a piece of paper and drafts a rough contract which he and Tiana both sign. Tiana then pulls the paper out from under them).
Tiana: Pleasure doing business with you.
Mr Fenner 1: Evening, Tiana. Marvellous party.
Tiana: Evening Mr Fenner. And Mr Fenner.
Mr Fenner 2: Fine smelling beignets.
Tiana: Going to be the house specialty once I get my place up and running.
Mr Fenner1 : Yes. About that.
Tiana: What?
Mr Fenner 1: We were wondering… A fellow came in, offered the full amount in cash.
And we wondered if maybe…
Mr Fenner 2: You’d changed your mind about the place
Tiana: You know how long it took me to save that money?
Mr. Fenner 1: Exactly! Which is why a little woman of your background would have her hands
full trying to run a big business like that. What do you say?
Tiana: I think not.
(The Messers Fenner exchange glances)
Mr Fenner 1: Are you sure about that?
Tiana: I’m sure.
Mr Fenner 1: Oh, well. No harm in asking.
Mr Fenner 2: Goodbye, Tiana. Love these beignets.
Tiana: Goodbye! What the- Stella!
(The over-excited dog leaps onto the table in pursuit of a frog, causing it to collapse
– covering Tiana in mess).
Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE Charlotte CHARLOTTE
Tuesday 18 September 2018
Little Green Men sketch - Mercorabilia
Another short one today.
Man comes up to the side of a road. The man beside him is
looking nervy.
Man 1: Are you ok?
Man 2: Huh?
Man 1: You seem a little shaken.
Man 2 looks around him as if to check he’s being watched and
then leans towards Man 1. Man 1 leans in to hear what he says.
Man 2: I’ve seen little green men
Man 1: Really? Where?
The pedestrian crossing signal changes. Man 2 points at the
green symbol across the road.
Man 2: There!
Man 2 runs screaming across the road
Friday 31 August 2018
From The Mind of Merc - Unicorns
Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about unicorns and, more specifically, their inclusion in the bible.
My nan once told me that, when she read the bible, the description of a unicorn – rather than the mystical white equine creature of fantasy – sounded to her much more like a rhinoceros. This intrigued me - could a modern-day mythical animal have been created from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of a much more common (and well-known) beast? I decided to investigate further.
On consulting the text, the biblical unicorn is described as an animal that:
- Has great strength (Numbers 23:22) and ferocity (Numbers 24:8)
- Has a single horn (Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 92:10)
- Is not suitable for menial tasks or perhaps untameable (job 39:10)
All of which do not seem to sit with the delicate, ethereal creature with which the word is associated today.
It is also perhaps telling that at one point (Isiah 34:7) unicorns are mentioned in the same context as bulls and bullocks – thus implying that they are beasts of burden not beauty.
The overall impression given is that my grandmother was right – the description of the unicorn in the bible does not fit with the traditional image of the majestic, single-horned (and often winged) horse and instead could be more suitably applied to the more rugged, native African creature – the rhinoceros.
During my searches, I found another theory that exists relating to biblical unicorns which suggests that ‘unicorn’ refers to some kind of wild ox which is now extinct. This theory was developed in 1899 by Johann Ulrich Duerst and likens the biblical unicorn to the auroch – an ancestor of modern-day cattle. It is based on the supposition that the Hebrew word ‘re’em’ (from which the word unicorn is derived) is based on the word ‘rimu’ –the name given to the one-horned oxen depicted in Mesopotamian reliefs showing King Ashurnasirpal out hunting. However, the aforementioned reliefs are inaccurate and the animals being hunted are purportedly shown with one horn to depict the ‘beauty’ of their two horns being symmetrical – depictions of the same animals in Egyptian art show them with two horns and ergo they are not uni-corns.
Some supporters of the oxen argument claim that the creature referred to in the bible has two horns – using references to ‘the horns of a unicorn’ rather than ‘the horns of unicorns’. However, even if this two horn theory is correct, it does not disprove the association of rhinoceroses and unicorns given that not all rhinoceroses have one horn – there are also the two-horned Bicornis –natives of Asia and Africa.*
The association of Duerst’s theory (and some modern translations) of unicorns with oxen could perhaps be explained when looking at the evolution of the rhinoceros – artistic impressions of the prehistoric manifestations of these creatures do not look like our current incarnations with their supposed furry bodies, exaggerated size, and placement of their renowned horn being much higher up on their heads. However, the transformation from these to their modern-day counterparts can be seen in the development of their skulls – from elasmotherium sibiricum (also known as the Siberian Unicorn) through the sinotherium lagrelii to hispanotherium matritense and rhinoceros unicornis.
Also, almost contemporary images of the re’em - such as that in the floor mosaic in the Basilica of San Giovanni Evangelista – match more closely with that of an antecedent rhinoceros than cave paintings of aurochs –i.e. both creatures that would have been around in and known to those of the biblical era and yet clearly distinguished (in depictions) from each other.
Further investigation revealed a pre-existing association between biblical unicorns and rhinoceroses as in the original printing of the King James Bible, in 1611, in Isiah 34:7 when the word unicorn is used there is reportedly a footnote that says: “or rhinoceros”.
Also, the Douay-Rheims Bible (which precedes the King James Version) uses the word rhinoceros. As does the Latin Vulgate Bible – published c.400AD: “fortitudo similis est rinocerotis”. Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 even goes so far as to define ‘unicorn’ as: “An animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros”
This suggests the words were in fact interchangeable and hence why some versions use one and some the other and proves conclusively the perceptiveness of my grandmother in identifying the unicorn of biblical record as being none other than the cumbersome, ferocious, one-horned beast often found (although, regrettably, increasingly less so) in Africa and Asia.
* Even if the word re’em and rimu are linked it could be that the oxen were labelled rimu to heighten the impression of the beauty of their horn symmetry. Or they might have been incorrectly labelled as rimu as they were believed – from the image - to have one horn.
My nan once told me that, when she read the bible, the description of a unicorn – rather than the mystical white equine creature of fantasy – sounded to her much more like a rhinoceros. This intrigued me - could a modern-day mythical animal have been created from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of a much more common (and well-known) beast? I decided to investigate further.
On consulting the text, the biblical unicorn is described as an animal that:
- Has great strength (Numbers 23:22) and ferocity (Numbers 24:8)
- Has a single horn (Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 92:10)
- Is not suitable for menial tasks or perhaps untameable (job 39:10)
All of which do not seem to sit with the delicate, ethereal creature with which the word is associated today.
It is also perhaps telling that at one point (Isiah 34:7) unicorns are mentioned in the same context as bulls and bullocks – thus implying that they are beasts of burden not beauty.
The overall impression given is that my grandmother was right – the description of the unicorn in the bible does not fit with the traditional image of the majestic, single-horned (and often winged) horse and instead could be more suitably applied to the more rugged, native African creature – the rhinoceros.
During my searches, I found another theory that exists relating to biblical unicorns which suggests that ‘unicorn’ refers to some kind of wild ox which is now extinct. This theory was developed in 1899 by Johann Ulrich Duerst and likens the biblical unicorn to the auroch – an ancestor of modern-day cattle. It is based on the supposition that the Hebrew word ‘re’em’ (from which the word unicorn is derived) is based on the word ‘rimu’ –the name given to the one-horned oxen depicted in Mesopotamian reliefs showing King Ashurnasirpal out hunting. However, the aforementioned reliefs are inaccurate and the animals being hunted are purportedly shown with one horn to depict the ‘beauty’ of their two horns being symmetrical – depictions of the same animals in Egyptian art show them with two horns and ergo they are not uni-corns.
Some supporters of the oxen argument claim that the creature referred to in the bible has two horns – using references to ‘the horns of a unicorn’ rather than ‘the horns of unicorns’. However, even if this two horn theory is correct, it does not disprove the association of rhinoceroses and unicorns given that not all rhinoceroses have one horn – there are also the two-horned Bicornis –natives of Asia and Africa.*
The association of Duerst’s theory (and some modern translations) of unicorns with oxen could perhaps be explained when looking at the evolution of the rhinoceros – artistic impressions of the prehistoric manifestations of these creatures do not look like our current incarnations with their supposed furry bodies, exaggerated size, and placement of their renowned horn being much higher up on their heads. However, the transformation from these to their modern-day counterparts can be seen in the development of their skulls – from elasmotherium sibiricum (also known as the Siberian Unicorn) through the sinotherium lagrelii to hispanotherium matritense and rhinoceros unicornis.
Also, almost contemporary images of the re’em - such as that in the floor mosaic in the Basilica of San Giovanni Evangelista – match more closely with that of an antecedent rhinoceros than cave paintings of aurochs –i.e. both creatures that would have been around in and known to those of the biblical era and yet clearly distinguished (in depictions) from each other.
Further investigation revealed a pre-existing association between biblical unicorns and rhinoceroses as in the original printing of the King James Bible, in 1611, in Isiah 34:7 when the word unicorn is used there is reportedly a footnote that says: “or rhinoceros”.
Also, the Douay-Rheims Bible (which precedes the King James Version) uses the word rhinoceros. As does the Latin Vulgate Bible – published c.400AD: “fortitudo similis est rinocerotis”. Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 even goes so far as to define ‘unicorn’ as: “An animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros”
This suggests the words were in fact interchangeable and hence why some versions use one and some the other and proves conclusively the perceptiveness of my grandmother in identifying the unicorn of biblical record as being none other than the cumbersome, ferocious, one-horned beast often found (although, regrettably, increasingly less so) in Africa and Asia.
* Even if the word re’em and rimu are linked it could be that the oxen were labelled rimu to heighten the impression of the beauty of their horn symmetry. Or they might have been incorrectly labelled as rimu as they were believed – from the image - to have one horn.
Wednesday 29 August 2018
The Alternative Mermaid sketch - Mercorabilia
Today I thought I'd put pen to paper (or rather finger to keyboard) to write up the alternative ending to Disney's The Little Mermaid that I'd previously come across. It's so simple! And obvious! Although it would have condensed the film quite considerably.
This much in fact:
This much in fact:
Ursula: Oh - and there is one more thing. We
haven't discussed the subject of payment. You can't get something for nothing,
you know.
Ariel: But I don't have any -
Ursula: I'm not asking much. Just a token,
really, a trifle. You'll never even miss it. What I want from you is . . . your
voice.
Ariel: My voice?
Ursula: You've got it, sweetcakes. No more
talking, singing, zip.
Ariel: But without my voice, how can I -
Ursula: You'll have your looks! Your pretty
face! And don't underestimate the importance of body language! Ha!
[singing] The men-
[singing] The men-
Ariel: Alright - deal.
Ursula: Do you mind? I was in the middle of my
favourite number!
Ariel: Well, I do have a prince to catch.
Ursula: Fair enough. Sign here.
Ariel signs contract with faint smile on her lips.
Ursula: Paluga, sarruga, come winds of theCaspian
Sea .
Now rings us glossitis and max laryngitis,
La voce to me!
Now . . . sing!
Ursula: Paluga, sarruga, come winds of the
Now rings us glossitis and max laryngitis,
La voce to me!
Now . . . sing!
Ariel: [Sings.]
Ursula: Keep singing!
Giant magical
hands rip out Ariel's voice and take it to Ursula who stores it in her shell
necklace. She laughs as Ariel is changed into a human and rushed to the surface
by Flounder and Sebastian.
Fade to beach.
Eric and Max are walking near castle.
Eric: [Playing flute.] That voice.
I can't get it out of my head. I've looked everywhere, Max - where could she
be?
Max smells
Ariel and gets excited.
Eric: Max? Huh . . . what, Max!
Max chases Ariel up onto a rock.
Eric: Max . . . Max - Quiet Max! What's gotten
into you fella? [Sees Ariel.] Oh . . . Oh, I see. Are you
O.K., miss? I'm sorry if this knucklehead scared you. He's harmless, really - .
. . you . . . seem very familiar . . . to me. Have we met?
Ariel nods
Eric: We have met? I
knew it! You're the one - the one I've been looking for! What's your
name?
Ariel mouths
"Ariel" but no words come out.
Eric: What's wrong? What is it? You can't speak?
Ariel shrugs.
Eric: Oh. Then you
couldn't be who I thought.
Ariel
is trying to get his attention and mimes writing on her hand.
Eric: What is it? You want… you want something to write on?
O-ok. Give me a minute.
Eric ferrets through his pockets and pulls
out a scrap of paper and a stub of pencil
Eric: Here you go.
Ariel grabs the proffered instruments and
begins to scribble away as best she can while Eric watches bewildered. After a
while Ariel appears to get frustrated - what she wants to say won’t fit on the
paper. She angrily crosses out what she’s written, turns the paper over and
tries again. Once finished, she hands the paper to Eric who reads aloud.
Eric: “I am the one who saved you from the shipwreck. If you
kiss me, I can prove it.” Oh. Oh, cool. Well, if it’s alright with you, miss.
Ariel nods – yes, it’s definitely alright
with her. Eric leans forward and the two of them kiss.
Deep under the sea, Ursula’s shell
necklace begins to glow.
Ursula: What the-? It can’t be.
The shell explodes and Ariel’s voice
bursts out of it – singing the tune Ariel sang as it was taken - and rises to
the surface; evading Ursula’s attempts to recapture it. It bursts out of the
waves and heads straight for Ariel. Eric seems to recognise it. The ball of
light collides with Ariel’s throat and Ariel’s voice is restored. Eric is
stunned.
Ariel: Eric.
Eric: It really is you.
Ariel: I told you so.
Eric: Will you marry me?
Ariel: Of course.
Cut to: Eric & Ariel’s wedding ship
leaves port. The merfolk rise up to wave her off. Ursula appears above the
waves a short distance
Ursula: That little tramp.
Triton, who is a floating in front of
Ursula, turns and sees her. His expression darkens and he raises his trident.
Ursula: Oh sh-
Triton: Ursula, stop!
Triton fires his
trident and Ursula explodes into pieces. Satisfied, Triton turns back to watch
the ship sail away.
Saturday 18 August 2018
Sixth Sense Sketch - Mercorabilia
A short one today.
Cole: I want to tell you my secret now.
Dr. Crowe: Okay.
Cole: I see dead people.
Dr. Crowe: Where?
Cole’s hand emerges from under the covers holding a TV
remote which he points at a set across the room. The TV turns on to show a very old programme whose cast have all passed away.
Cole: There!
Wednesday 1 August 2018
From The Mind of Merc - Hairdressers
Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics and occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about hairdressers.
I rarely, if ever, frequent hairdressers. I just don’t like them and I don’t enjoy the experience. This is for several reasons. One is that – despite several attempts – I have never been able to relax in their chair. Secondly, the cost is fairly prohibitive. Thirdly, and above all, of the half dozen or so ‘professional’ haircuts I have had, there has only been 1 I have been completely happy with. That’s it – 1 out of 6. That means on at least 5 occasions (as there may be times where I have gone to a hairdressers but have blocked the experience from my memory) I have come out feeling unhappy, dissatisfied and, in some instances, on the verge of tears (which is then aggravated by having to pay for the travesty that has been inflicted).
I’ll give you some examples – last year I had my hair cut off for Cancer Research. At the time it reached down to my waist and I asked for it to be cut off and styled in a pixie cut with a sweeping fringe. What I came out with was an asymmetric cut which had neither a sweeping fringe nor was of pixie length. (I had to go to a friend of my mum’s to get something even remotely like what I had asked for).
At my most recent cut – for which I frequented a hairdresser favoured by my mum who was eager for me to ‘neaten’ the straggly parts of my hair (a notion which I did not object to) – I came out with the straggly parts duly trimmed but also with subtle ‘adjustments’ to the front of my hair which included the parts further back being shorter than those in front creating an almost inverted v shape on either side of my head (if that makes sense – it certainly did not make for a satisfied customer).
I think the main cause of this is the fact that the majority of hairdressers have become ‘trendy’ - they focus on styles or cuts which are fashionable (often at the expense of the traditional, plain or downwardly popular). Now for the fashion-obsessed minorities, this is probably ideal (however unfortunate the outcome may be). For the rest of us it is at best inconvenient and at worst a complete nightmare as this means that what they will give you is - not the haircut you want but - the haircut they think you should have.
This Is Wrong.
It is my hair – I know what I do and don’t want done to it. I am the one who has to walk around with the result visible to all. If I ask for my hair to be chopped off and be given a pixie cut, I do not expect to be given an asymmetric trim with considerable length left in it. If what I am asking for is not suitable for me – fine – then I will learn from my mistake but it should be my choice to make.
(There is also of course the connected issue of why their ability to cut hair means they will know what will suit their client. It may be said/thought to go with the job but I know of so many instances when that has proven not to be the case.)
Also, I think another reason is that, as many people frequent hairdressers, the hairdressers themselves have an expectation that any haircut they give does not have to be long-lasting or low maintenance.
This is also wrong.
I am paying for A (singular) Haircut – not signing up for a hairdressing regime on which I am being forced to become dependent based on a) my lack of hairdressing skills or b) the inability of the business to give the customer what they want.
Not only is this unfair it is also infuriating – we should not be forced to repeat our unsuccessful custom especially when we have previously learned that this unlikely to result in us getting what we want or asked for.
(Given the so-called skill of these people) I should be able to get a haircut that is easily managed (or better yet requires little to no maintenance), matches what I asked for and what I want, and does not cost the earth. That is what would encourage me to return.
Also, as stylists are now creating ‘home brands’ which are designed to enable people to get ‘salon quality at home’ we should not be faced with barbers who seem to have the opposite intent.
But maybe I’m alone in this. Maybe I am one of a very few minority rather than those who do regularly frequent hairdressing salons and do come out with a haircut they wanted and/or asked for and therefore do not face this issue. But I can only speak from my experience.
What I struggle to understand is why it is so crazy to expect a hairdresser to dress YOUR hair in the way in which YOU want? It’s as if all hairdressers yearn to take part in elaborate and exotic hairstyling shows and the monotony and banality of the basic requests of their customers leads them to rebel in the only way they know how by attempting to add their own spin on these simple demands.
If this is the case then I feel they should stick to Girl’s World dolls and leave our own tresses blissfully unmolested. (Especially when they then want us to pay for what has been done to us).
I remember recently there was an advert in which restaurant patrons were invited to pay only what they thought their meal had been worth. The idea was to prove how cheap the vendor they were advertising was but oh, how I wish we could do that with hairdressers.
We should not have to put up with (and definitely not have to pay frankly ridiculous sums) for something which we did not and do not want, is irreversible (it is only through time and patience that the travesty inflicted on us can be eradicated), and affects our everyday lives. They see us for 30-40 minutes – everyone else sees us until it eventually grows out.
It is our hair – it should be our decision and our choice.
Wednesday 25 July 2018
Come Meet The Prince - !!!NEW!!!
I realised that I hadn't yet done a parody song to commemorate the arrival of the newest addition to the royal family (as I did for Prince George and Princess Charlotte) so I thought I'd rectify that.
Consider
Yourself Come Meet The Prince not from Oliver!
Yes, come on and meet the prince
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
We’ve had a chance to see
Prince Georgie
And Charlotte too
They’re the other two
But now
There is a chance to meet
Somebody new to us all
Come with me I’ll show you how!
Yes come on and meet Prince Lou
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration, yes it’s true
So come on and meet his Highness!
Prince Georgie
And Charlotte too
They’re the other two
But now
There is a chance to meet
Somebody new to us all
Come with me I’ll show you how!
Yes come on and meet Prince Lou
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration, yes it’s true
So come on and meet his Highness!
Yes come on and meet
The prince
Yes come on and meet...
The little Prince Louis
We've taken to him
So strong
And that’s... why...
we’re now singing this song
Yes come on and meet...
Him now!
Yes come on and meet...
The newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
The prince
Yes come on and meet...
The little Prince Louis
We've taken to him
So strong
And that’s... why...
we’re now singing this song
Yes come on and meet...
Him now!
Yes come on and meet...
The newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
So come join the party - celebrate the new baby
He’s a source of glee for all
But it is best to be polite to his family
They are royalty after all!
He’s a source of glee for all
But it is best to be polite to his family
They are royalty after all!
Yes come on and meet Prince Lou
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration yes it’s true
So come on and meet His Highness!
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration yes it’s true
So come on and meet His Highness!
Yes, come on and meet the prince
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
We’ve had a chance to see
Prince Georgie
And Charlotte too
They’re the other two
But now
There is a chance to meet
Somebody new to us all
Come with me I’ll show you how!
Me I’ll show you how!
Prince Georgie
And Charlotte too
They’re the other two
But now
There is a chance to meet
Somebody new to us all
Come with me I’ll show you how!
Me I’ll show you how!
Me I’ll show you
Me I’ll show you
Me I’ll show you
Me I’ll show you
Me I’ll show you how!
I'll show you how!
Yes, come on and meet the prince
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
Yes, come on and meet the little Prince Louis
We've taken to him so strong
And that’s why we’re now singing this song
Yes, come on and meet him now
Yes, come on and meet the newest royal babe
He’s quite a special person
Grandson
Of the heir to the kingdom
So come join the party - celebrate the new baby
He’s a source of glee for all
But it is best to be polite to his family
They are royalty after all!
He’s a source of glee for all
But it is best to be polite to his family
They are royalty after all!
Yes come on and meet Prince Lou
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration yes it’s true...
So come on and meet
Come on and meet
The cause of all of this fuss
Now is the time for celebration yes it’s true...
So come on and meet
Come on and meet
Come on and meet
Come on and meet
Come on and meet
His Highness!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)