Random Thought Collection 2

That's right my dear little readers it's my second "I have nothing to post" post! There are a few things I've considered writing about but don't think I can stretch out into anything worthwhile, so I'll stick them together here. Enjoy.
To kick things off I discovered only yesterday that maybe I don't over-think people as much as I thought. I always thought I was fairly open about how I feel about people. Well up to a point, being a massive coward I clam up the second I have any romantic interest in someone, seriously you could ask me outright and I'd just lie, but I digress. I've never made any attempt to hide my dislike of anyone and just assumed that my feelings were clear. However thanks to a conversation with Megan on twitter (aka, a conversation on twitter)  I now know that it can be mistaken for a joke. I can see why that would be an easy mistake to make, I do make a lot of insulting jokes towards people I bear no ill will towards, but then I will spend time around them willingly. So here's a simple rule of thumb for you: if I'm mean to you but then spend time just hanging about and chatting, I was probably kidding; if I'm mean to you when necessity forces us together, then spend none of my free time in your company, I probably meant it.
Point two, I went to see the Hobbit on Friday and well... It was so good! I was little wary that they might have taken the easy route and made it cheap to profit on the back of Lord of the Rings. In reality the exact opposite seems to be the case, not a single scene felt cheap or rushed or drawn out. The third of those being by far the most likely as the one little book that is the Hobbit is being made into as many films as LotR, yet somehow it feels perfectly paced. I await the second part with great expectations now. Also, an interesting point I picked up on: besides extras in Hobiton or the very first scene, the lady Galadriel is the only female part, not too surprising in a film about dragon hunting, but interesting nonetheless.
Leading on from that one, before the Hobbit started both theatrical trailers for Les Miserables were played back to back. Since then the only time I haven't had either "I dreamed a dream" or "One day more" in my head is when I've been listening to a different song from it. There are so many things about it that excite me: Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen singing "master of the house" will be hilarious; Anne Hathaway's "I dreamed a dream" (being in full context of the plot) will make me cry (for the first time in many years), if it doesn't Samantha Barks doing "On my own" will, that's her in the video, as far as I'm aware the only west end star in the film; and frankly I'm just curious about hearing Russell Crowe sing "Stars" I just can't imagine him as the powerful baritone that's needed for Javert, but that remains to be seen. I can't wait to see it and am seriously angry that the yanks get it on Christmas day, but we have to wait until the 11th. Incidentally, if anyone wants to go see it, because I don't want to go alone, just contact me in some way or another. That sounds lonely, it's just that I don't know people who'd want to see it. Well Morbey said he'd like to go but then Josie said she would too, so... Yeah the offer still stands.
I think that's it for now, my head is empty now. Toodle bye children.

Bitch Form, chapter 2

This post is a response to "Bitch Form" (hence the title) a post on the blog "A Little Splash of Magic", have a link http://ladymegg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/bitch-form.html I'll get to my response in a minute, before that, some pandering, feel free to skip to the next paragraph. Still here? Good now I promised you pandering, prepare to be sickened. You should check out the whole blog not just the one post, it's a well written little blog by the brilliant and rather beautiful Megan Ruddy (although her upper body is inflatable and deflates when she exhales) Unfortunately her little blog doesn't get anywhere near the views it deserves, so when you're done here read her other posts. I think that covers the pandering front. On with the bitching, from now on I'm assuming you've read Megan's post and will be proceeding as such.
Firstly I agree with the majority of the post, the tendency to bitch in that common room is far too high. There are constant arguments about god knows what, of course whatever it is will quickly be lost among the random insults and arguing. That said however, I feel the need to point out that we don't reside in some form of tribalism, everyone has their preferred people obviously and so like any full society we're split into a few septate groups, 3 by my reckoning, but that, as well as most of the people and actions in there, is perfectly normal.
The group I belong to, comprised mostly of nerds (a combination of art and science nerds), is fairly harmonious in its way. There's no infighting, the only insults are intended and taken as jokes, and as far I'm aware no backstabbing or two-facedness (the only way there could be is if it's directed at me and I don't know). So clearly miss Ruddy's post does not account for everyone in the sixth form.
As for the... polite terms, that are clearly Megan's main focus, well if I'm honest I don't really want to waste words on their internal squabbles, if it isn't causing me a problem they can carry on as long as they like. Put simply, the "intergroup wars" Megan speaks of I don't believe exist, oh I'm fully aware of minor spats between individuals that have been picked at like scabs but "wars" is a massive exaggeration.
I know that something about our year isn't right and there is far more bitching than normal, but it's far from the defining feature of our sixth form, the malcontent's voices are always the loudest, but I assure you, the majority of us are perfectly forward with no childish hidden agenda.

The Leveson Report

It would be wrong for anyone with a blog to ignore the report published today, laws governing the media have the potential to be used regarding independently controlled forms of media such as this and, to a lesser extent, even social media. However it appears that there is no suggestion of anything resembling an umbrella law to control all forms of public media, in fact as it stands there is a debate about whether a law is even what is needed going on in parliament right as I type these words.
The summary of the report (46 pages, only a summary) seems to focus on the role of the PCC and not that of parliament, however I fully support the use of legislation to ensure the press is unable to continue with this culture of public abuse and taking their pick of what laws they want to apply to them then ignoring any legal problem that gets in the way of a good story, whether it is true or not.
What amuses me is the way the parties in the commons are experiencing something of a role reversal, the conservatives are fighting against legislation while the more left wing parties, including the governmental lib-dems, are in favour of changing the law. This change has come about because the Tories will always favour the freedom of the rich over the protection of the masses, lets move on before I get to bogged down in party politics.
The freedom of speech and the free media must be protected, without freedom of expression we cease to truly be free individuals. This does not mean that the press should be free from legal structure and regulation that ensures that the media respects it's readers and the people involved in it's stories. Self regulation is undeniably the best possible system, but it does not work under the current system. The PCC has no power over anything, a new body is needed to protect the public. If it were possible for this body to be established and run without statutory backing then it would be, however if it has legal backing then this new body would be given real power over the illegal actions of the press. The politicians giving this body power is very different from politicians giving themselves power over the press.
Truly independent regulation has failed, a new system is needed and the law should back this system. Today's report is going to have a massive effect on the media, let's hope the government are able to make sure it has the correct one.

Random Thought Collection 1

I figured a good way to keep myself writing between posts is to write down whatever I'm thinking about, I know a lot of blogs are like that so why not mine? That said it's really just filler and a way to keep me from going stir crazy so there's a good chance it will be shit, if it comes to that I won't do another one I promise.
I've been listening to a lot more music than before recently, still very little that's normal for an 18 year old heterosexual male but oh well. Even as I write this I've got my headphones in at full volume, there could be a gunfight going on in the hall right now and I'd have no idea. I think it's partly down to the amount of re-runs on tv. Watching the same episode of a show twice in a month drives me insane, but I can happily hear a good song 3 or 4 times in a day and still enjoy it. Actually I don't need to keep replaying songs as (returning to my heterosexual comment) I've been listening to a lot of Paloma Faith recently, I'm fairly sure that's pretty gay, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Leading on from that I realised as I was writing that paragraph just what a high percentage of the people I admire are women. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of great men in the world, it's just that in the majority of fields it's a woman I hold in the highest regard. Two important exceptions would be politics (Thatcher (probably the most powerful woman in British political history) should be burned at the stake) and directing (there is no such thing as a bad Tarantino movie) but all the best singers, actors, characters, writers, comedians, pretty much anything in the public eye, are women.
As you can probably tell reading this or my other posts, or if you know me, my mind does have a tendency to wander randomly, making writing these posts a rather difficult and slow process. During the writing of this I've tweeted 3 times, stopped to sing twice, spoken to heather and then even read a post on Megan's blog about lipstick (I have no interest in lipstick at all) so its been about an hour to get to here. If my mind has nothing to wander or cling to I get bored really fast. Like when no one's talking to me on twitter for example, I just stare blankly then go somewhere else. That said there are only really two people who I talk to on twitter more than once a week (unless Kelly's in a particularly irritating mood) I wonder if they're going to read this... Hi Lucy and Megan! You never know, that might help me find out.
I'm starting to ramble a little now, so before I descend in literary anarchy I will stop here, this far, no further. So with that little first contact quote I bid you adieu. Live long and prosper.

The Lovell List

I discovered something interesting today, apparently I get embarrassed when questioned about my obsessive nature, or more accurately the current focus of that part of me (subsequently I withdraw all objections to Megan changing her name on twitter, I get it now) Still, I'll be damned if a few blushes in a mechanics lesson is going to stop my fangirling (I'm pretty sure that is the correct term as I do tend to get rather squeally and effeminate, it's quite something) I'd decided yesterday I was going to do the list so I am.
I've called this post the Lovell list after Mrs L as she ordered everyone at the party in a field (It's not a festival!) to have it finished (no one did, poor Mrs L) but it's hardly a unique thing. It's simply a list of the five famous people that you would (and if you're in a relationship, are allowed to) sleep with if by some bizarre twisted miracle the opportunity should arise, lets not waste time thinking about that now. That's pretty much all the rules as long as they're properly famous (for example I would consider Athene Roberts but can't because the three daft monkeys aren't that famous)
Once you finish reading this I want you to comment with your version of the list, just the names will do, but any reasoning will be appreciated.
Anywho, I promised you a list, so a list you shall have. From 5 to 1, because that's all dramatic and such like. The names are all spelt as they should be, it's just Americans can't spell, so be nice to them.

5. Kat Dennings

There's a chance this one is more for a character than a person but it's my list so shut up. Kat Dennings is hot, don't agree? Look left a bit, still disagree? Go away. The character Max from two broke girls is just brilliant, it's one of the rudest sit-coms America does, largely thanks to Max delivering lines like "You don't need a good nine hours (sleep) you need a good nine inches." Every line, no matter how crude or childish is so perfectly done that it's always hilarious. Max is rude, self-reliant and very distrusting of basically everyone, any actress who can make that character both consistently funny and likeable has to deserve a place on the list

4. Hayley Williams

I admit, I no longer listen to, or have a massively high opinion of Paramore's music (there are a lot of worse artists out there, but my tastes have moved on) but we're not taking about music here are we? No matter what you think of the band you have to admit that Hayley Williams is one of the most beautiful people in the world and the youngest on this list at 23. Being a redhead doesn't hurt either, even if it isn't naturally that colour. Her voice is sexy, the way she dresses is sexy, just accept it Hayley Williams is sexy.

3. Kari Byron

I didn't know what a "milf" was when I started watching mythbusters, because it was years ago, then Kari Byron had a child and it suddenly made sense to me. Anyone with a university degree famous for working on a science show that can still place number 69 (te-he) oh FHM's sexiest women in the world list in 2008 has to be something a little bit special. She is one of the smartest people on TV, and certainly one of the sexiest. She's had galleries displaying her sculptures and then went into blowing things up for a living, a mix of science and art like that shows just how smart she is and smart is sexy!

Before we move on numbers 5-3 can be disputed and changed about between quite a few people, but the top two are way out in front, but then they are very close to each other. A single line in a song/film could swap them over but as it is I'm sticking with it this way round for now.

2. Katherine Jenkins

Remember earlier when I said my musical tastes had changed? Well they changed to classical and to the best selling classical singer in British history, the beautiful and stupidly talented Katherine Jenkins. She was a singer I was aware of for years but had never been interested in, now I can listen to her for hours without having to move or do anything at all. She has one of the best voices in the world (it's a close call with her and Helena, but for totally different reasons) No one can sing anywhere near as well as she can (believe me, I've tried) and she seems like a genuinely nice and down to earth person (obviously I've not met anyone on the list so I cant say first hand) so of the whole list she is the one who I think is most normal, not boring normal just nice and normal. So she's an obvious number two, who was number one when I started writing tonight, I told you it was close at this end.

1. Helena Bonham-Carter

It took far, far longer to pick that photo than any of the previous ones, how am I meant to pick one picture that shows just how amazing and iconic the brilliant and beautiful HBC is? The woman is amazing, a mother of two who works full time (not at a normal job but still full time) HBC is amazing in every one of the ridiculous number of roles she's played, a fact that's made all the more impressive by the range of characters she's portrayed. Everything the woman does, from the understated Olivia in 12th night to the utterly marvellously mental Bellatrix Lestange in the Harry Potter films, is played to perfection, she is without a doubt one of the greatest actresses alive today. She is four years older than my mother, but so brilliant at just about everything that there is no way anyone else could go at the top of the list. Plus her voice is so amazingly calming and slightly posh, I want to fall asleep to it. I want her to marry and adopt me at the same time. 

Flirting, seriously why?

Before I start I'll just say, I am going to try to keep this as free from depressing narcissism as I can, but being me I'm sure there's going to be a little bit mixed in here.  That said I do wish I was capable of flirting, I can make friends with people I like past that I just sort of shut down, it's rather impressive in a way. Anyway, on with pseudo-science that is my opinion.
Evolution is supposed to select the best characteristics for the survival of a species, so why have we developed a system of behaviour that seems only to make life harder. Why is it required to prance about with subtle hints instead of it being normal to say how you feel and move on from there (Some people can do that but you have to be good at it)
Obviously I'm not saying we should be like animals and just be like "here I am, lets reproduce!" No, that would be insane. Knowing someone before getting into a relationship matters obviously, what I'm saying is that should be what's going on obviously.
Thinking about it, this sort of subtlety should be removed from all sorts of human interaction, think how much easier life would be if you had no doubts about how people feel about you? That way you wouldn't have to be changing you behaviour to cover any possibility you can foresee when in fact their mind is made up about you.
I know it sounds like I can just change my actions and deal with this issue myself, but human social structures bind me with rules about tolerating people I don't like and other ridiculous actions. This goes back to my older post about how much easier life would be if I was socio-pathic.

Mornin' Children

I just read a (first) blog post that ended mentioning one post blogs, I know mine isn't but it still made me feel guilty about not posting for so long. Yes I know it's hardly letting anyone down, I also know that writing because you feel like you should rather than because you have something to write about almost makes a shit post inevitable, but I'm writing it anyway because fuck you, that's why.
Since my last post a few things of note have happened to the world, I'll do two quickly in this post to get me back into writing, starting with the big one at the start of this month; apparently the American people are not as insane as they seem. I'm talking of course about the re-election of Barrack Obama, the cool, non-crazy democrat. Beating Mitt Romney, the insane, slightly scary republican candidate, by over 100 electoral collage votes. The fact that the BBC called 100 points the line when the word landslide becomes appropriate shows just how badly saying 47% of the country doesn't matter to you can be. 4 more years of democrat control is good for both America and, by extension, the world as Romney would have been a diplomatic and economic nightmare, he wanted to be the CEO of the USA, not the president. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney ran again in 2016, hopefully the democrats can find someone as charismatic as the two men running this year.
I feel better already, I might even write a full and coherent post on one topic before December, anyway on two point two. The ancient Israel/Palestine/Gaza has flared up again, by the way this is a situation that would be far far worse if Romney was in the white house, but this conflict is unique this year as it is not a democratic revolution like the ones across north Africa and the Arabian peninsula, this is a genuine nation on nation conflict. No more important in motivation but all the more worrying as both sides of the conflict have indisputable buildings and large weapon stores, this makes the bombardment of civilian cites all two easy. The worst thing is that both sides are firing at the other because the other fired at them, it's a never ending tit for tat war that will end in an invasion if it doesn't drop off to a simmer again as it has been before. As I had no plan to write this I'm not as informed as I like to be so I'll stop here before delivering an untruth.
I've just realised how much I missed writing, so I'm sure I'll return to the blogging world for at least another few weeks, hopefully longer. So, until I write again.

Swearing

I was thinking earlier, what's so bad about certain words? Don't get me wrong, I understand that words like nigger and faggot have strong links to a prejudiced viewpoint, but why general swearing? I can't see anything that links swear words together, it just seems to be random words that are worse than all others according to some arbitrary scale I can't seem to understand.
Simple and common example, what's so bad about fuck? If it was the meaning then sex or intercourse would be swear words, if it's the sound then we can get rid of duck. So what makes fuck the bad guy? The same logic applies to all the other randomly assigned swear words. Who decided these certain sounds are worse than others? If no one told you about them would you be able to pick them out? What if it was decided another word was now swearing? No would accept being told they had to stop using it, so why is it ok to censor other people? There is no logic at all to the existence of swear words, so why do we allow them to be worse than any other?

Syria

This is the second post with that title, this one is about the events not the reaction. However I will obviously be mentioning what I believe should be done, that's how this blog works.
I'm writing this now (23:42) because I just saw a picture from the aftermath of the Kafr Aweed massacre, the picture is of a man holding the decapitated body of a girl who cant be more than 6 (http://i.imgur.com/Gy9wq.jpg The image is there but it is horrible) and it just made me think. How long ago was it that the UN said the events in Syria were unacceptable? Why then have they been accepted this long? If they meant it when they said they would not accept this then something would have been done and that girl would be alive today.
The worst thing to me is that reports from inside Syria are so small and sparse that I can't even tell you which side was responsible for this, it could have been anyone, the government, rebels, bandits, anyone. Let me make this clear now, Syria is not in a state of civil war like Libya was, Syria is in a state of tribal barbarism most of the world stepped out of before the end of the middle ages. There are no good guys in this conflict, there is not a democratic force of freedom fighters, there is no significant force for good in the entire country, just village on village on village, massacre after massacre until the news gives up on the unconfirmed reports and people start to forget.
The situation is so bad there is clearly not going to be any solution that will take anything less than many years and many lives. So far as I can see the governments of NATO and the UN have two choices available to them: Intervene, force democracy on the country and remain there for what could be decades until the country is stabilised, it is not an attractive idea and in almost any other case it would be an atrocity for anyone to force control on a country in this manner, but I believe it is what has to be done, because of the alternative; the west does nothing, allows Syria to dissolve all features of civilisation and collapse into a new dark age, this is the end of the path Syria is being allowed to travel down. 
If nothing is done, Syria as a nation will cease to exist, it will become a back spot on the map full of warring tribes, it will be decades or centuries until a true nation is reformed if the conflict continues as it is doing so now. Intervention will not be popular from any point of view, this is the biggest flaw with the democracy that is being fought for, to stay in power you do what is popular, not what is necessary. So there will be no action from the west and many more massacres like this will happen.
A county is dying and the people in power chose not to react to stay popular, is democracy even worth fighting for if it will not fight for it's own existence?

23 Years, Just to Say Sorry

The "police had failed to do enough and had also tried to blame Liverpool fans" -David Cameron. "up to 41 of the 96 who died could have potentially been saved if they had received treatment earlier" -Dr Bill Kirkup. These two quotes are to me, the two main points of the new report into the Hillsborough disaster, the sad thing is that everyone has known them to be true since 1989 so why has it taken an 18 month investigation using 450,000 pages of documents to figure this out? 
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the blame has finally been placed where it belongs and not on "mayhem caused by drunks"  -Irvine Patnick (To Margaret Thatcher in 1989), is good news, but it is late news. News that has only formalized a clear truth. All that has been given today is a sorry, a meaningless apology from people who simply succeed from those who should have given it decades ago. What matters is that this becomes a stepping stone, the report attributes the disaster to gross negligence on the part of the police, not the officers on the gates, but the men giving the orders, the people who ordered the police to cause the deaths of 96 people. These are the people who should be brought to justice and it is clear that charges should be made and the fight for justice will continue as fiercely as before.
Today's apology should be welcomed by everyone, but not seen as anything more. Justice has not yet been done, but another step towards it has been taken. Justice can be ran from, but not avoided. It may take many more years, but those responsible for the gates being opened will be held to account, justice will be achieved for the 96.

Benefits of Obsession

I get obsessed with things fairly easily, it's not a bad thing, it's not a good thing either, its's just a thing. They take hold quite fast, it often only takes one exposure to set it off, sometimes I'll be aware of something for ages then suddenly it will be all my free time for the next month. They can be anything really from Helena Bonham Carter to the 3 Daft Monkeys. The obsession normally only lasts from a week to 2 months, but I will retain the high opinion that lead to it in the first place (For example, I haven't listened to a Katherine Jenkins song for well over a week, but I still believe that she is one the best singers I have ever heard).
Anyway, as the title implies I've noticed a definite change in my actions between phases where I have an obsession verses ones where I do not. Converse to what even I expected of myself, during an obsessive phase I find much easier to deal with myself and others ("easier" as we all know I'm not likely to ever find human interaction easy). I noticed this recently as I realised I felt total apathy towards everyone, even people I know matter to me. In my current phase, without obsession, I find myself more violent and argumentative than normal, angering people I want to be happy, for reasons I cannot even justify to myself.
So I've thought about why something I'd expect to make me more reclusive actually brings me closer to being a balanced and well rounded person, I have an idea but I'm sure there's no psychological basis for it all at. I think because the obsession works away in the background, I don't get as bored and therefore feel the need to create a scene through violence or provocation. Plus having something I wish to talk about can make social interaction easier (however, although I have never hid any obsession of mine, I don't always talk about them). This makes it easier for me to sit an just talk, even when the topic changes I'm ok as I've settled into the conversation.
So put simply, don't worry if you get a little obsessive, it might just stop you doing something stupid.

God isn't Listening

"Everything happens for a reason" "God has a plan for us all" "God is all knowing" all comments you'd expect from a follower of any major religion. Most of these religions will also contain some sort of prayer system. So my point today is this: If everything happens according to some divine plan, why would god change it for you? And if god knows everything, that surely includes your wishes, so how does saying them out loud help?
Even if we assume the universe is run according to the whims of some divine entity, how self centred and egotistical must you be to believe you are important enough for it to intervene in your life? Do you really believe your problems are so important that they eclipse every other issue in the universe? The very idea of preying is basically saying that you are all that matters in the entirety of existence.
And regardless of your opinions on religion and prayer, you have to admit that there are better things that you you could be doing on your knees.

Homophobia, its Against Nature

I'e been thinking a lot about the main argument used by homo-phobics "it's not natural to be gay" and I already knew that wasn't really true as I knew of Roy and Silo, the 2 male penguins that raised a chick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo), so I knew that it wasn't just humans that have the capability to be homosexual. Being me I thought I should look into it some more before writing on it. It turns out that homosexual behaviour has been observed in around 1500 animals, which makes it seem fairly natural.
Although strictly speaking it's more often bisexual (except in sheep where 10% of males are exclusively homosexual), in black swans for example a male will mate with a female, wait until she lays eggs and then drive her off for another male. The signets raised by the two males are more likely to survive than those raised by a male-female pair. So male-male pairings are not just  natural but beneficial to the young. In fact humans exhibit a much lower rate of homosexual behaviour than many other species (the highest is in bonobos where 60% of all mating rituals are between 2 females)
So if homosexual pairings are so common across the animal kingdom I think its fairly safe to say that it's perfectly natural to find homosexuality in our species. Homophobia on the other hand, like all prejudices, is an exclusively human idea. It's strange to think that the people who pride themselves on being the natural type of human are the only ones exhibiting unnatural behaviours.

Shakespeare

I've watched 2 film versions of the bard's work today, one I know well and one I have never seen nor read in any form, Macbeth and 12th night. Despite being made 60 years apart and both over 300 after the play was written, both manage to resonate more with me than anything I seen or read for many months. As a result I am forced to wonder how it is that so many people find Shakespeare boring, it amazes me that schools manage to turn people off some of the most beautiful works in the world's literary history. I refuse to believe that anyone would not enjoy Shakespeare at least as much I if they would but make the effort to witness it off their own accord and free of the constraints of an English lesson. 
Almost every common complaint about Shakespeare can either be traced back to poorly engaging education, or they stem from simple ignorance. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of modern English should have absolutely no trouble with the bard's, the fact that nothing is abbreviated and full sentences are used properly should make it far easier to understand that most modern written communications  and certainly not harder. Any claims that the issues or plot lines are outdated are clearly unfounded, many of the plays have been re-set in modern times while remaining true to the original text, so the plot is clearly as relevant today as it was in the 16-17th century or else they would have seemed insane. 
Take for example one of the speeches in 12th night "She never told her love, But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud, Feed on her damask cheek: she pined in thought, And with a green and yellow melancholy She sat like patience on a monument," I instantly recognised my own romantic cowardice in those lines, and was born less than 2 decades ago, 20 times more recently than the play was written. If you were to go though all the many works it wouldn't be long before you find a speech or a character that fits you perfectly as well.
English lessons may have tarnished your opinion of Shakespeare, but you should not let this prevent you from taking the time to realise how good his works really are.

Offence and Offensive Words

It doesn't come across nearly as much here as it does in real verbal conversation, but I swear a lot. It isn't that I view swear words in any special light, in fact its quite the opposite, they are just words to express a strong dislike, and I dislike many things. Consequently there are some things that a refer to as "cunts" and for some reason many people seem to believe that cunt is worse than any other word in the great language of our lands, and they are entitled to this opinion.
What irritates me is that they believe this should change the way I speak. A good example of this is one girl I know who objects to my use of the word cunt, and no other word, in the same way every time "I don't like that word" this would be fine if it was just a statement of fact but it clearly is not. It is always given as a, poorly concealed, order to stop using the word cunt. My response is always the same "I don't like the word *first word into my head (often orange for reasons unknown to science)* therefore I demand you stop using it" without exception this order is ignored.
I may not genuinely be offended by "orange" but the hypocrisy of people offended by "cunt" stands out regardless. The way I speak will not be influenced by a single person, beyond the amount it changes between situations just like anyone else's. I will not omit any word, be it "cunt" or "orange", because you want me to.
Offence should come about in the same way as any other emotion, because a logical stimulus has caused it. Take racism for example, people who are offended by other races are rightly not respected for that belief as it has no logical basis, but offence at racism is respected as it is supported by logic. Yet an illogical hatred of the word cunt, albeit not as serious as racism, expects to be able to control your language.
I am not going to change the way I talk for you, so don't be a cunt about it.

Meeting in the new world

James May once said the meeting between man and machine will not take place in the physical world but the digital. I would in fact go a step further and say the meeting between man and man is becoming a far more digital affair. By only 2010 25% of American marriages originated from online meetings (Rosenfeld and Thomas, Stanford university) It is becoming less common for people to meet, they rather meet up, already having known each other well for months possibly.
There are of course people who will lament this "impersonal" form of communication, but they're simply showing a conservative nature that offers nothing but a hindrance to progress. Every major leap in human history has been opposed by some and few leaps have been as large as the internet.
The people I meet in person I talk to in person, only online when I have something important to say. However when I get home I have people I talk to purely on the internet, most of these people I will never meet however this does not make any relationships any less significant than one that benefits from close proximity. I would only consider myself to have one friend that I've never met but I feel certain that as time goes on this number will rise for everyone.
Just as you don't have to befriend everyone you meet, I believe you don't have to meet everyone you befriend.

Religion- In the interest of fairness

I've been thinking a lot about religious arts recently, and modern religion in general and I suddenly realised something. My main complaints about religion are against fundamentalists (faith on the other hand is still an unreasonable system of illogical madness) but most people are able to weed out the mad orders, and benefit from the positive aspects of religion.
Religious inspiration has given us some of the most impressive forms of basically all the arts: the cathedrals at Notre Dame and Cologne are the most impressive pieces of architecture I've ever seen. Two of the most beautiful pieces of music I know are Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Fkuq5Lf0Q) and Angel (Katherine Jenkins, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7TcH-3MVs) both clearly with religious inspiration. As far as I'm aware there are no atheist arts that can compete, everything is done for a purpose, ad therefore not art.
I still believe that faith without prof is insane, but ignoring beauty because you disagree with its inspiration is as mad, if not worse.

Why the world needs bloggers

I was ordered to write a blog on blogs earlier and was not planning on complying until I realised that, as the Murdoch monopoly is currently being torn down around his ears, independent news blogs will become more prominent. While most, mine included, offer little or no real news signing up to blog at least gives you the chance to find and read real news. For this reason I am happy that other people I know have set up blogs, regardless of their content or reason.
That is in fact the point of my praise, no one person could ever control the bloggosphere any more than they could the internet. So every blog, from the million hitters to the tens, from the most inanely personal to the most informative news blog, every single one is a piece of freedom that will be very hard to take legally, and together they greatly protect the free media.
So whatever your blog may be I support and encourage it, even if I have no interest or even disagree with what you're saying. Freedom of speech is more important than whatever it is you're saying.

God - What makes you worth worshipping?

The front page of the sun today (so hardly a reliable source of information) shows that the most important thing happening anywhere in the world right now, more important than Korean tensions, more than the Syrian uprising, is that god saved a footballer from a heart attack while doctors were "baffled". There are two things that upset me about this. The first is that those doctors are the only reason he is alive and yet they are portrayed as incompetent fools.
However there is an issue that I wish to address more, as most people are aware how intelligent and valued doctors are, and that is that god protected him. This means that the world is watched over by an interventionist god, an undeniably good thing. However this god does not use it's power to intervene in wars, famine or plagues. Nor does it reveal itself to the world and address humanity to end religious disputes by giving us all the facts. No, the most important thing in the world to god is the health of one footballer.
So I ask you this, if god exists and is willing to intervene in treatable medical issues, but not large scale disasters, does this god deserve your praise and respect? Or should they be held to account for their actions, for caring for one footballer while ignoring thousands of starving children? You may believe in god, or you may not, but I wonder, god has infinite power, and is reported to willingly intervene in human lives, so why is there so much suffering of innocents?
A further question on this issue was raised to me today. If god is all powerful, and has a plan for everyone, why do you pray to him to assist the ill/injured? Surely god caused or at least permitted them to fall ill to start with? This adds further strength to my belief that god has no right to demand the affection of the humans who lives he seems to delight in toying with. To paraphrase a friend of mine, surely when praying for god to help someone all you're really doing is begging for mercy?

Syria

Contrary to what the name suggests I'm not going to talk about what's going on in Syria, I'm instead focusing on what is being done about Syria. You see I believe it was Kofi Annan who described the situation as "unacceptable" however, it is being accepted. Disagreeing with a course of action but letting it happen is accepting it, you have to actually intervene if you find something unacceptable.
We have seen this far to often recently, all across the middle east political uprisings have given corrupt leaders the chance to utilize means that should be unacceptable, but the only way western governments are willing to intervene is with a stern word.
Politicians need to realize that this isn't like every other political issue, they cant sit on the fence until the issue is resolved and then sit there pretending they supported the victor all along. People are dying and those in power need to pick a side and support it from the outset. In the case of Syria I believe that the opposition should be assisted in the strongest non invasive way possible until such a time that a stable democratic government is formed.
In most cases the political game is played with tax money and political power, and it can cause massive damage. When it is the entire future of a country at stake there is no room for games, action has to be taken.

Internet Tracking, the Death of Privacy

Before I start I would just like to thank the conservative government for getting my blog out of its downward spiral and back to its original angry roots. I'm currently watching BBC news and noticing that two of the biggest stories seem to be the polar opposites of each other. Today James Murdoch has stepped down from his post as head of BSkyB, as a result of the phone hacking scandal. Put simply, monitoring people’s activities without their permission has lost him his job. The other story is that the government are pushing forward with their attempts to pass a law that would allow them to monitor any activity that anyone makes on the internet in Britain. The exact thing that has begun to break down the Murdoch empire is not only about to become legal but it will become mandatory law. Benjamin Franklin once said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The government wish to remove the right to privacy to attempt to prevent cyber-terrorism. However I am almost certain that passing this law will increase the activities of many groups such as anonymous. The people this law aims to target will easily avoid it and will see it as provocation. This is an entirely new kind of warfare but the government are trying to fight it using 19th century methods, they are marching into unknown territory and drawing their own battle lines. These lines will be crossed and ignored and the only people to suffer as a result will be us, the innocent public.

Inheritance

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS, still here? good. Be surprised my friends, this is a positive post, very little criticism will be contained.
Only yesterday I finished reading the final book in the inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini, it is a beautifully crafted work and I urge to take the time to read it if you haven't already.
My main comments will be on the ending, hence the big capitals at the beginning. The end of the book, and the series as a whole, has a biter-sweet feeling caused by the separation of the main characters where everyone ends up in the position they deserve to be. However the final roles and locations of everyone is a product of duty and consequence, with little options available to anyone.
The way Paolini creates a real sense of loss, coupled with the determination of his characters is amazing. I've read few books, stand alone or series, that have a dénouement able to invoke such strong emotions. Every character has their situation crafted with more detail that most stories main character, and each one reacts in a way that is perfectly believable. The readers emotions are played like an instrument right up to the last word, every emotion like a single note, woven into a song of such beautiful precision, every emotion rising up at the perfect time. Amazingly the book never seems melodramatic or over the top, but it will grip you to the very end.
This separation could also be used to show how a common goal unites peoples of all races, religions, and creeds. This unity is needed to remove the empire and forge the peace needed, and as soon as this goal is achieved they return to their separate lives. I think this brings to light one of the few positive aspects of war, the uniting of people and formation of bonds.
Cleverly, Paolini has left many loose ends, allowing for, but not demanding, a fifth book (incidentally, I have already heard whispers of such book being in the works). Something I seriously hope for
Chiefly among these loose ends is one of my personal favourite characters, Angela the herbalist. She comes into the story very early on, at least in relation to many characters of greater significance, including the entire varden and yet her character is shrouded in mystery. Her age is unknown, but hinted to be much higher that many elves; she has a respect from the elves that rivals the dragons; she predicts events that no others even consider, with perfect accuracy. Despite all this no real explanation is offered for who she is, my personal belief is that she is the soothsayer mentioned by Galbatorix as neither elf nor human, who lived in Ilirea long before the rise of the empire.
To sum up, despite some rushing, I believe that Inheritance, both the book and the cycle, ends in a way crafted better than anything I have ever read.

Too Good to be Evil

Today in psychology we watched "Girl, Interrupted" a film set in a mental institution. I'm not here to talk about the film, suffice it to say that Angelina Jolie plays a socio-path called Lisa. As I watched I realized that I envy socio-paths, socio-pathy is not an affliction but an ideal state I wish I could inhabit. I cannot help but have at least a modicum of care for the well-being and even opinions of others, no matter how much I loathe my own mind for it.
Every day I find new things to hate about society, yet I cannot escape it. Almost everything gives me the desire to do something cruel and yet no matter how hard I try I cannot bring myself to act on these desires. I can explain it best using Freud's tripartite personality, my mind is totally ruled by the Id, but somehow I cannot remove the influence of the superego on the actions of my body. I am incapable of doing the things I wish for fear of how others will perceive it, a pathetic notion I know.
If you are a socio-/psychopath (and lets be honest they're the same thing with different names), you are unlikely to care but oh well I'm saying it, then I idolize your view of the word, in fact I share it, and wish I could act on the impulses of my mind in the way you can. No matter how much I may wish too I cannot force myself to live up to my full self serving potential.
I realize that there will be people coming up with things like "but they have to work so hard to fit into society" "why would you want an illness" etc etc. But I don't want to fit into society and it isn't an illness. With, true, full on socio-pathy the fitting in issue would be gone, and so there would be no struggle.
There are people who will disagree but I do have basic human compassion. I just don't want it.

SOPA-Closing the borders?

You'e made the effort to read a blog, you don't need a lecture on the massive impact that the "Stop Online Piracy Act" will have on the free culture of the internet. So instead I'm here to talk about how I think it will impact the international subculture of nerds and webtroverts that inhabit sites such as Reddit, most of which are based in the states.
All of the greatest sites that have user generated content join an entire world together, allowing people who are likely to never meet to share their interests and views with the world, and some of this will inevitably involve the use of copyrighted materials. The only way that SOPA could police this content is with an entire shut down of the site, or a minimum of censorship that would cripple the site beyond recognition.
But the thing that worries me the most is how this will close off the nerd world, I know it sounds like a petty social issue but we are a group who gets everything from the net, the sites that are at risk from SOPA are often an invaluable source of news, political; religious; entertainment; any topic really that's the beauty. Taking these sites down will not improve life for billion dollar media companies, but it will greatly impact the lives of the international community, especially those who are able to use the internet to make their money. If the bill is passed it will force the United States onto the road that China has been on for a while now, setting a precedent that will allow the right wing nutters to slowly bring more and more crippling acts to the American government, one step closer to losing your free speech is one step further than you should ever allow.
On this side of the Atlantic I can do nothing to prevent the bill, if you read this and are American I implore you, pester your senator, badger your congressman, beg your friends and family to do the same. SOPA is anti freedom, fight to stop it.