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 Any claims that the issues or plot lines are outdated are clearly unfounded, many of the plays have been re-set in modern times while remaining true to the original text, so the plot is clearly as relevant today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.