And when I woke up I was sure that I was Winston Smith, cowered in the alcove to avoid the telescreen. You see, the government have decided that, if anything, the plan to record every phonecall, e-mail and text message didn't go far enough, and they needed to snoop in on Facebook, myspace and bebo, so the have a list of everyone's friends, blogs, sexual and religious orientation, wall posts and messages.

This is, of course, to fight the ever growing threat of a terrorist attack.

But what exactly do they think terrorists do? Log on to twitter an say "Praise my distorted and twisted understanding if Allah, for I go now to blow up a pub, the Wetherspoons on the corner of high street and warwick avenue, in Stoke. I shall be entering paradise wearing my green knee length coat, a blue hat and sunglasses, at exactly 16.03 tomorrow.." ?? because I don't think that fits in the characture count.

The notion that with tens of thousands of encryption methods, secure messaging sites and secure phone lines, people log onto facebook to become friends with bin laden is so retarded I expected even the government to know better. You can read more at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/now-big-brother-targets-facebook-1653407.html or, if you think the indy is too liberal, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7962631.stm But still, it's not like the government ever loose any data they have, right?

I quote: ''; Home Office spokesman said it would consult shortly "to ensure that we keep up with technological advances''''

But one must counter, then, that surely there was no big database recording every letter ever sent from one address to another? Surely the pub landlords were not required to fill in forms detailing who met together for a pint of ale back in the 60s? What they are doing is blatant scaremongering, fear-baiting, and invading privacy on a level never before seen or heard outside China (or maybe Russia).

There is no feasible way this can combat terrorism any more than the time they made postmen catalogue all the letters in Northern Ireland to see who was a ... oh, hang on a minute, I've just remembered that they never did that because it would achieve nothing. This is a shambolic attempt by the incompetent government to drum up fear, to invade your privacy and start the most expensive snooping program in the Western World. Oh, did I mention that the home office is training 60,000 members of the public to report when they see suspicious people? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/23/jacqui-smith-terrorism-civilian-force

Yeah, this sounds about right for a government whose leader is travelling round the world advocating spending money when his bank manager says he can't afford to, whose 10 years of financial mis-management has led us into this recession and who still don't understand that spending money we don't have isn't a solution to anything exept destroying peoples lives. You want to monitor something, you can monitor this.

So, I advocate to you all, readers of the internet, you may want to check out safe-mail.net, and you might want to think about pulling the plug on facebook if this bill gets through. I know I will be.

I'll take the threat of a few people who think God wants them to blow themselves up over a government who think they are God.

Yes folks, it must be a day ending in a "y", because the enlightened government of her majesty's people have decided there is something important they need to make against the law.  I speak, you may be surprised to know, of a recent article in the independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graphic-artists-condemn-plans-to-ban-erotic-comics-1652270.html - concerning the government banning of "pictures" depicting "children" and "sex".

Now, first of all, I am abhorred by anyone who takes pleasure in child pornography, or anything of that ilk.  Obviously, that goes without saying.  But there are so many horrendous problems with this government bill because it shows, once again, that they are incapable of thinking through any legislation in favour of a blanket ban which doesn't stop the criminal activity and criminalises the rest of us.  (Go and research the uses of the terrorism bill and add up how many times it's been used to prevent terrorism compared to infringing the rights of law abiding subjects.)

You see, the government has decided that a "picture" (which is effectively defined as any graphical material, from a hi-res photo to a doodle in a margin of a book) which has a child (by which they mean anyone who appears to be under the age of 18) present in it whilst a sexual thing is happening, could now be illegal to own.

So the Watchmen, the novel, will now be on the governments banned list because the kid walks in on his parents... (I'll let you insert your words into the end of that sentence).  As will many more comics suffer the same fate.  Indeed, I imagine that thanks to Rule 34, there is plenty of pixie/dwarf/midget/fairy/etc pictures out there in the world wide web who appear to be under 18.  And also, as I probably should mention, given the age of consent is 16, what on earth?!?

Also, I can't see peadophiles who steal children, download images of unspeakable horror and sneak around school play areas are going to think twice before they browse in amazon a copy of The Lost Girls, and think "Wait, I think this is against the law."

Sometimes I dispair for the country.  The other times, I'm generally asleep.

Anyway, it's good to know the members who are called to represent us are so good at fixing the economy, sorting out jobs for the unemployed and education for those who don't have enough that they have the time, after solving world peace, world hunger, championing free trade, fixing the schools and sorting out the environment, to impose a new law infringing free speech.

Bravo, idiots, Bra-freaking-vo.

The MPC meeting shows a clear lack of joined up thinking from the experts.  First of all, we see a cut in interest rates.  The idea of which is to generate cheaper debt.

Now step off your “debt got us in this mess” soapbox a moment, right though it may be, because we have to come to grips with the notion that this isn’t just personal debt we have to deal with here, it’s corporate.  If companies have been encouraged, through poor legislation and a complete lack of control from government over the last 10 years (but don’t worry, Mr Brown is genuine in his belief it’s not his fault, so we can trust him to get us out of it), to borrow up to the hilt, then any reduction in income is going to affect their ability to pay back the mountain of debts they have taken out.  So, they either need to cut costs (i.e. lay off staff, reduce purchasing and/or investments), increase income, or they need to cut the cost of their debt.

Unfortunately, the banks aren’t, as seems to be the thinking by the MPC, a bunch of brain dead, central bank following morons.  They are fully aware that companies and people have over borrowed for around a decade, and now times aren’t so rosy it’s getting tricky to pay back all the costs that have been accumulated over all this time.  That means they are fully aware of the fact that the money they think they are owed is only worth what people can pay back.  Which is why all of a sudden there are massive write-downs of the stock and balance sheets of banks.

To counteract this, they are going to charge for the risk of losing all their money in the event that people/companies won’t pay it back.  The worse the economic situation gets, the more they are going to want to charge, protecting their own backs. 

In addition to this you’ve got to remember that there are savers who invest their money into the banks, which the banks then loan out to people (and they also invest some of it, or loan to other banks) to make their money.  Savings accounts therefore will always have lower interest rates than a mortgage; otherwise the bank pays out of its own pocket.

Given a savings account with 0% will attract no customers whatsoever, the rates paid to savers need to be around about in line with inflation, at the minimum.  Otherwise by keeping your money in a bank, it’s worth less the next year than it was when you paid it in.  Better to buy anything that’s likely to keep its value, artwork, antique furniture, and even vintage Turkish Zildjian cymbals than stuff it in a bank.

So inflation hovers around 2.5-3.0%.  So interest rates, where you can find them, are about the same amount.  Therefore there is no point in further reducing interest rates because it won’t cut inflation, so savers rates can’t go down, so lending rates can’t go down.  In fact, cutting inflation causes investors in Stirling to pull out knowing the yield (return) will be lower, so Stirling drops in value against other currencies (like the Euro and the dollar) and because we import practically everything, costs get driven up, and so inflation goes up.

Add to that the problem of personal debt, where people are mortgaged, credit card-ed, and loaned to the hilt to pay for things they couldn’t afford, which means they can’t take out any more money, and the little cash they do have should be frantically going towards paying off any excess debt, so that when (I mean if, right?) they lose their jobs, they don’t get the repo men and the banks taking everything they own and still being in debt.  If there is no spending, the companies aren’t making any more money, so they have to lay off people, so they have less money, and the cycle of recession completes another turn.

Quantitative easing, the genius second string to the bow of the MPC, is not technically printing money, because the money is added to the electronic bank sheet and never exists in the physical world.  But to you and me, it is making money exist where it didn’t before, and if the people who write duck tales (see video on my facebook profile) can understand what that causes then why the hell can’t the MPC.

The fiat money (that is, money created without a gold reserve to back up the wealth) will almost certainly be used to buy the government bonds, because, err; no-one else is (see the ft website for the downturn in bonds sales).  Which is great, because then the government can use the money to fritter away on retarded bailouts or even more retarded expenses claims for their own MPs.  At least they’ll have a pension to draw on.

But the problem is when you create money from nothing, all the rest of the money becomes worth less.  And that means higher prices, higher inflation, and the last time it got really bad with hyperinflation coming out of a depression we needed a world war to right the economy.  The other problem is it tells the world “the UK are up to their necks in a bad way” and so everyone bails out as fast as possible, leaving the problem much worse, and the delightfully short-sighted nature of economics means we’ll probably keep printing money until the only thing that will fix our problems is invading Poland.

So, if we’re not careful, the pound will plummet, hyper inflation will spiral, and we’ll have our life savings incinerated by the lack of interest accumulated.  Of course, it could be that the QE doesn’t achieve anything, in which case we just have a regular depression on our hands and we can look forward to rioting and soup kitchens.

Yes, I know they are two extremes, but we have to remember that there is no quick fix now, not when you’ve spend a decade binging on cheap credit thinking there would be no end to it.  Tie in the global population explosion, lower crop yields and people are going to have to get back to a time where food shopping and bill paying probably is the biggest expense from your pay check.  The only sensible thing the government can do is trim its own outgoings, cut jobs, get rid of retarded waste of money schemes (trident, ID cards, tax credits), and pay off as much of its own debt as possible. 

It’s a hard storm, and we aren’t even halfway through yet.  You can’t set up a tea party on deck to convince the cruise passengers that there isn’t a hurricane over the starboard bow.

Then **beep** off.

Yeah, I went there.  Because there should, in no part of the world, be a people who single-handedly oppress those who offend others.  Now let’s just get a few things straight.  First of all, I'd want to draw the line between offence and inciting hatred.  Example - "Jesus was a loon" - offensive - "We should ship all the immigrants home" - inciting hatred (unless you're a BNP party conference speaker, in which case it's called "key-notes speech".)

But what on earth is the problem with a little bit of tolerance, you may well ask... along with thousands of other people, bleating out the same tune (yes, I am being deliberately offensive here, get over it).  And you'd be right to ask such a question, and it deserves an answer.  But let's get one thing straight before we bother sabre rattling.

tol⋅er⋅ance  /ˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA –noun   (dictionary.com)

1.	a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

 

2.	a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

 

3.	interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

 

4.	the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

Now I don't know about you, but I think that fair, objective and permissive are all good ideals to strive towards, as long as they don't contravene a higher moral code.  By which I mean, I'll be fair objective and permissive of you as long as you don't go killing people, or anything equally retarded, because then the only objective decision I'll be making is how long to look you up and whether or not to throw away the key.

But take, for example, a seasoned drummer coming across a newbie, arms flailing, sticks flying and the only job he's doing well is destroying his drum kit.  Would you prevent the drummer from explaining to the newbie why his technique was all wrong on the grounds it might offend him?  Surely it would be far better for the newbie to swallow the bitter pill and move on, improving the technique and himself as a player.  Was the seasoned pro being fair and objective?  Of course he was, but it didn't stop a situation arising from which someone could have been offended.  But taking offense here gets you nowhere other than to the drum shop having to buy a new kit.

But let’s replay that scenario once again
"Say son, that's not a very sensible way to drum!"
"Yeah?  But my teacher taught me to play like this."
"Well then, if that's true, your teacher is either misguided or an idiot."

This situation could bring offence to the teacher, although surely it would be right to criticise him if he's teaching other people to drum like a seal on a river bank.  But the student shouldn't really be taking offence, surely.  I suppose he could have you-tubed, seen concerts and realised he was doing it wrong, but some teachers are pretty strict, and, sadly, that can go hand in hand with being wrong.  After all, you wouldn't want your student more enlightened in the ways of drumming than you, right?  But in any case, offense would have to be actively taken, and that means, as it always does, people who are offended are putting effort into doing it.

I have no right to live my life free from being offended.  In fact, a situation that arises where I could take offense generally means I can also go the other way and improve things.  The student above would be a wiser drummer to listen and improve, but if he only takes offense at some point he'll have to square with the fact he's a worse drummer than Meg White.  Putting his hands over his ears and screaming to himself will get him nowhere at all.

It seems to me that society has reverted to the infantile age of a human, running round screaming about what is "mine" and how "I'm right" and not allowing a foothold for criticism.  But criticism is the very catalyst for progress, and we should embrace it wherever we can.  Of course there are nice and horrible ways to be criticised, but of what use is if we all just pretend everything is fine and then wonder why nothing works.

So why, instead of going round trying our best to ban criticism on the grounds it might cause offense, can't we just ban taking offense on the grounds it achieves nothing but halting progress.  If you read here often, you'll know I'm a Christian, but I'd be an idiot if I didn't listen to the criticism of my faith to see if it has any grounds, and if so, perhaps there should be some time to figure out whether it's the human interpretation of the message that's causing the criticism, or the message itself.  Because if it’s the message, then there's something wrong with my faith.

Saying that you don't want your religion to be offended, in my eyes, is pretty much saying you have no answers to the criticism levelled against you, so why not dig deeper into your religion, learn about it, become able to think for yourself, and either refute with learning, believe that there are answers that you don't understand, admit changes need to be made, or get yourself a new religion.

To see the article that prompted this tangled mess of thoughts the author calls a blog, click here - http://www.slate.com/id/2212662

Can we please start programing a default list into military machines, so that when they can go back in time, they can do the following:

1) Terminate the woman who sued McDonalds about the coffee and started this insane blame culture.
2) Terminate the guy who thought it was a good idea to play music on phones without enforcing headphone use
3) Take power over Parliment in 1997 and pass the following laws:
     - No leader change can be approved without a general election
     - Banning fox hunting itself is illegal
     - Selling the gold that backs up Stirling is retarded and any man who proposes the idea must be shot
     - Blowing up Iraq is not a good idea regardless of what George W says, and anyone who disagrees needs to spend a week in a prison somewhere
     - Any laws passed under the excuse of "terrorism" which is blatantly erosion into Civil liberties is null and void
     - ID cards are a waste of money.  If any government wants to bring them in they must pay for them with their own salaries.
     - All MPs who need an extra house in London stay in a youth hostel and are damn grateful for it.
     - The millenium bug, the millenium dome, and the millenium fireworks don't really achieve anything.  Stop wasting money.
     - Regardless of a persons country of origin, if the work is done within the UK they must be paid UK minimum wage
     - Peter Mandelson is incompetent and must not be employed.  Perhaps his spin will help him in another occupation where he isn't rewarded for failure.
     - Fitting anything onto a scooter to make it louder is punishable by being banned from the road for life.  The same applies to motorbikes less than 125cc
4) Hack the votes in Florida in the Bush vs Al Gore election in favour of Al Gore.
5) Ban mobile phone ownership for under 12s.  And come to that, ban them going to see 12As.
6) Terminate whichever person came up with the first "Accident laywers for you" advert.  If another one is made, terminate them too.
7) Terminate whichever Civil Servant is responsible for tax credits.

Any other ideas?

To attempt to reduce the gaps between posts, I have decided to limit the length of my posts such that it won't seem like committing three days to my blog just to put a post that no-one reads and the only people who comment are spam-bots.  With this new approach, I give you a quote from BBC news.

"Labour says the Lib Dems' plans are confused and its ambition of cutting both spending and taxes is not credible. "

That's what we want in a government who are in charge during a recession, right?  A party who think that cutting both spending and income (taxes) is not credible.  I've often thought that if my income was cut that it would not be credible to cut my spending as well.

Excellent.  I've got to say, in a world recession caused by people spending what they don't have, where the only plan to fix it by the government is to spend what they don't have, that the criticism sheds light on the ignorant, unintelligent government that we are forced to watch destroy our once great nation.

Dear all,

Just wanted to send you a quick note to ask you to consider e-mailing your respective MPs about the pre-budget report that has been allowed a 3 hour debate by the speaker of the house.

 

You will know I rarely send either mass e-mails or political petitions, but I feel quite passionate that this report is a disaster for the economic future of our economy and our tax futures.

 

You can write to your MP by going to – www.writetothem.com and entering your postcode.  I have copied the e-mail I wrote below, but feel free to write your own if you feel that way.

 

Thanks, and I hope you are all well.

 

Dear John Smith,

 

I am writing to you with deep concern over the proposed budget plans set out in the pre-budget report by the right honourable Chancellor.  I read with pleasure that the report debate has been granted by the speaker of the house, and I plead with you, my representative in the house, to ensure that a fair debate is had.

 

I would impress upon you the significance of having the worst public deficit in modern history, the IMF's statement that the UK is in the worst position to combat the recession, and the multiple reports that spending to mitigate a recession does not work.  In addition to this, I implore you to consider the difficulty of a 2.5% reduction in VAT will have on business, and how little effect it can possibly achieve on consumers who are already presented with 20% to 40% discounts in many department store, and so many items of regular purchase VAT-free anyway.

 

I believe you to be a rational and calm thinking man, capable of putting the importance of the future economy and future tax burdens on your constituents at the forefront of your political alliance, and I implore you to work within your power to convince the chancellor and the prime minister to retract the catastrophic borrowing and VAT plans they have set out.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Let's get things straight, at least in my head, if not yours.  You see, there are things we are told to believe in as a kid, the tooth fairy, Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, that we are expected to stop believing in as we grow older.  Most of these are used like strange men on trains, to discipline small children and coerce them into behaving properly.  "If you don't shut up, that man over there will come and tell you off".  "If you don't behave, Santa won't come."  "If you don't stop lying, the Easter Bunny will poke out your eyes with a carrot.", are just numerous examples of things that probably get told to hundreds of children every day.  Even Gordon Brown gets used in emotional blackmail "If you don't eat all that dinner, and we put it in the bin, Gordon Brown will cry."

But despite the fact Mr Brown does exist, none of these things have ever really happened as a result of our behaviour or actions.  There will be those out there who haven't seen a stocking full of presents at Christmas, but that wasn't Saint Nick himself trying to steer you onto the straight and narrow, it was possibly because the money had gone on Christmas booze, or, at another extreme, the healthcare of a dying relative.  Anyway, the point stands regardless of the motives for the action.

But introduced to us alongside the Easter Bunny and Santa is this fella called Jesus, who, most people seem to understand, is some hairy dude in his bathrobe who lived along time ago and for some reason watches us doing everything so he can tell his Dad who can then smite us.  Not surprising that most people put this in the "urban legend" bin before they stop believing in the tooth fairy.  The fact is that people, struggling to parent on their own authority, tend to borrow the authority of Santa, or the scary man in the uniform, or Jesus.  And often it seems to work well enough to shut the kid up, for a bit.  And that's all fine and dandy, as long as the kid grows up to be a rational and contributing member of society, then there are numerous acceptable paths to get them there.

Then, people who have grown up and are happily minding their own business see that, one day whilst shopping, people will tell them they are a "sinner", which apparently is worthy of being poked in the rear end by some red guy with a large barbecue fork, for all eternity.  Now, given these people know nothing about the deranged-appearing man who is yelling at them, they feel a fair amount of righteous indignation at such a comment.  After all, the time for the use of such childhood figures to correct their behaviour has come and gone, and they feel that themselves they are good and upstanding, at least as much as the next guy.  And no-one takes kindly to being called "a liar" just because they told their missus that, no, the dress doesn't make you look fat.

So what on earth is the point of this inane babbling, I hear you ask.  Are you vindicating the "as good as the next man" approach to life?  Or are you telling me Jesus isn't any more real than Santa?

Well, neither.  You see I was trying to figure out why Jesus has suffered a glitch in his popularity ratings of late.  Because the problem is, we've gone past the whole "science vs. religion" debate.  It's like me taking apart my computer and then, understanding how it all works, refusing to believe in the guy who put it together.  The more we understand about our world has no bearing on whether we should believe in a deity.  Ok, so now I understand gravitational fields I won't believe a beetle pushes the sun over the sky, but then I have to come up with a reason as to why a gravitational field exists, and I'm forced to upgrade my beetle-god into one with more brains and less fire-proof legs.  But there still needs to be something there.  Understanding how a jigsaw on the table was put together just makes me more impressed of the bloke that did put it together.  Of course, if I couldn't do it then maybe I'd be slightly jealous and claim he cheated, by putting all the pieces in a blanket and shaking it until they all slotted together, but then the only people I could convince of that would be the men in white coats taking me away.

No the problem isn't that science has solved religion.  The big bang theory is just that, a theory, and even then it needs something to go bang with, and blimey what are the odds of producing life so clever they could turn around and start pontificating on a blog as to why they exist.  Gotta be more probably that something was in charge of getting it together.

The problem also isn't that we've sorted out our lives.  Just look at the amount of self-help books sold, find out why so many people are turning to gambling, excessive drinking, or excessive drug taking.  The lottery adverts don't start with "I know your life is perfect, but..." because they know we all aren't exactly happy with our situations.

In some ways, the problem is lack of believability.  I mean, a guy with a white beard who lives on the North Pole making toys and delivers them all to all the kids in the world in a very short space of time is pretty fantastical, but a guy who doesn't live on earth but can still hear everyone in the world who talks to him, some even in their own heads, at the same time, yeah, that's completely sensible.  And don't get me started on rising from the dead, turning tuna sandwiches into a colossal feast for over 5,000 people or walking on water... because, you know, even Superman couldn't do all that, and he's Kryptonian and fictional.

But there in lies the issue.  I don't believe my glass is on the table, because I can see it, so it requires no belief whatsoever.  When I go downstairs, I'll still believe its there, but it won't be too hard.  I don't see it being too unreasonable that the bigger the gamble the bigger the reward, so if all I have to do is believe and follow something to get a perfectly happy life-after-death that goes on forever, then it's gonna have to be a pretty major bit of belief.  And given so much is belief and therefore, by definition, so much isn't fully known or understood, it's also not hugely surprising that people are going to get different ideas.  I know for a fact that I don't think the same way about heaven as other people do, but that doesn't make it an impossible concept.  Hell, I don't think the same way about the taste of tap water to a lot of people, but tap water still nourishes and refreshes me.

And that leads us to the other problem.  The real big problem.  As far as I can see it, the most common reason for not going to church, is the church itself.  Not the building, the people.  If we're so busy expending all our energy bickering amongst ourself and slagging off the people outside, then how on earth can we profess to know this crazy deity that, apparently, is the very living definition of love.

Ah, all of a sudden I've upset a lot of people who really should know better.  Being a "Christian" isn't about following rules, and it's not about thinking we're better than anyone, or killing other peoples fun.  Yes, there are rules, but there are rules to follow if I want to stay in the UK, and there'd be rules to follow if I was elsewhere.  The fact is, a lot of laws are there for our protection, from others and others from us.  If I say I am a christian then that doesn't mean I follow the rules because I'm too stupid to work out my own way, it means I trust that this way is the best way for me.  And the best way to show other people that it's the right way to live is to be so, well, something, that I am in fact enviable.  What did Christ offer me?  Well, obviously there's this whole "eternal life" thing, but right here, right now, he's offered me peace, because I know that there is a plan for my life, and if I follow it, I'll be helped along the tough parts.  He's offered me love, because I'm not good at being loving on my own, so he's shown me what love is and I can give it to others from that.  He's given me hope, hope for tomorrow, for next week, for after Christmas, and for after death.  And he's given me the faith to believe in the ridiculous mind-bending things he can do, has done and will do in the future.

Those that know me, judge me on that.  That's what being a christian is, and yeah, it's hard work. It's following this bloke called Jesus because he's already paced out the best route for me to get from birth to death.  I still stray off the route from time to time.  I might holler at one of you because you're leaping off a cliff, but I'm trying my best to be helpful.  Fundamentally, anyone who professes to follow Christ should be identified by the fact they love one another, they can hope in the future being secure, and they can sit at peace with themselves.  Anyone who thinks "evangelism" is shouting at people in the street should probably start by taking a deep look at themselves until people are asking them what makes them so... well, so Christ-like.

So to anyone reading this who isn't a Christian, then I've got to apologise for all the stupid things people have done and said in the name of this "Jesus" bloke.  And lets get a few things cleared up.  No, being gay is not a sin.  Yes, women have every right to be bishops.  No, I'm not better than you.  No, I have no ability to know where you will go when your earthly time is up, but I do know that you're no worse at being "good" than I am now, and I'm still not good enough to get to heaven by myself.  See, perfection can't tolerate imperfection, and so I need someone to pay my price for me.  Someone who lived on earth and died because he wanted to pay my price so that I could be with him after I pass from earth.  Jesus, that bloke with beard, did just that...  and all it takes to have the assurance of heaven, and the hope for tomorrow, and the comfort, security, and love of this deity that is love, is to ask to start a friendship with him.  That's what he came and died for.

Don't take my word for it though.

...that I've been called - a "brainwashed leftist" who is "helping the devil" and a "feminist" are probably the most laughable. The link can be found on the independent website, under the heading "Why the Pope is not rejoicing at the split".  I would link it, but my clipboard is currently unaccesible due to the macro I wrote for Excell to add the next line onto the end of the line above, and delete the space.  It's not a bad little macro either, except when you're on cell row 64,500 and only half-way through, the lack of a clipboard begins to weigh more heavily upon your free browsing lifestyle.  (Or nerdstyle, depending on your perspective).

Anyhoo, the abuse was directed at me on the basis of saying that women have a right to be bishops.  Clearly, this publicly-believed notion that there are mad fundamentalist christians out there who refuse to believe in equal rights, enjoy female-suppression, and are biggoted, chauvenistic, insulting and quick to anger is the stupidest thing ever.  Oh wait...  No wonder church attendence is dropping.

Oh my, how Jesus would condemn us, the religious authorities, if he came to earth now.  The only reason against women bishops I can possibly contemplate is that they'd probably do a better job, being, as they are (on average), more caring, compassionate and better people-orientated than men are.  To avoid being shown up, the clever people decide to just make it all out wrong.

Now, I know people talk about the 12 disciples (indeed, aside from the fact Jesus' ministry was funded by women, he did go out and say "make disciples of all nations", not "make disciples of all the men in all nations"), and that, they believe is that.  But if we were to agree with it, then why isn't the pope an Israeli fisherman?  Why aren't 1/12th of all the clerics in the church ex-tax collectors?!  Clearly that idea is just stupid, especially held side by side with Lydia, Junas (deliberately mis-translated for a few centuaries as Jude), and all the other outstanding women examples in the New Testemant.

And then there's the passage "A church leader should be the husband of just one wife".  So apparently the single clerics are out on their ears also, along with those who don't have children, or whose children are not well-held in the community (as the passage goes on to say).  Funny how people can take one half and not the other.  Maybe we should just be using the brain that God gave us a little more.

Fundamentally, Christ was inclusive, regardless of background, sex, race or creed.  He came so that all people might be reconciled with God.  For his time, he gave women rights thus far not even dreamt of, so yeah, if the term was around then, maybe he'd be branded a feminist too.  God is love, and loves us all no matter who we are.  Ok, so there are things we do that aren't right, but I don't think we can put "being a woman" in the "sin-list".  Pointless, unproductive and plain stupid.  I'd rather a God-fearing woman as a bishop than many of the male bishops that are around.  The real question is how did such mis-guided people, whose inclusiveness is on a par with that of Nazism, come under the banner of "saved by grave and love."?

Hmmmmm.

...to all those lucky people who thought 7/7/7 would be a good day to get married.  Now it's 7/7/8, it doesn't seem so smart, does it, eh?  I would've thought 01/01/01 would have been a good call if it weren’t for the fact all the guests would be really hung over.  If you're going to pick a convenient and memorable date, 7/7/7 doesn't quite have the ease of working out the anniversary year, which is a bummer.  Still, the almost alliteration of the date (I'm not sure if alliteration is the right word when it concerns numbers, but wikipedia didn't give me an answer so I'm going with it and to hell with the consequences), prompts me to have another blog entry.

Actually, that's only half true.  The rest of the reasoning behind my blogging is that I'm too tired to concentrate and the office is full for the first time in weeks, the cars are splashing through the puddles on the road outside, and to all intents and purposes it feels like October, which makes it seem like a very long time since my last blog entry, so I better let my reading public (most of whom came from baidu.cn looking for nude images of celebrities and videos of the latest exploits of the mud-wrestling FF cup tournament, or whatever else horny business men type in to get directed to my humble blog (and therein leave quite suddenly, I'd imagine)).  Still, such is life, and, despite the lack of summer and the unpleasant office strip lighting, things are looking up.

I've noticed that Google have become somewhat slack and are now showing sponsored links that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you searched for.  I imagine this could be quite distracting in research if you searched for something related to your job but got presented with all these links that weren't related... luckily I'm very single minded and not open to distraction or procrastination of any kind.

Incidentally, the NHS is 60 this year, as is the book 1984, though I think the average age of a 1984 book in circulation is probably much less than 60, which is more than can be said for the NHS equipment.  In other news, it’s now 3 years since we got our underground bombed, which I think is about how long Gordon Brown wants to hold terror suspects without trial.  I think he's just going to end up arresting the other electoral candidates come the election, because that's about the only way he'll end up winning.  Although some might think this is going a bit far and looking a little too much like Mr Mugabe's Zimbabwe, I should probably point out that one of the differences is that Barclays haven't loaned our government £750m, and there closest we've come to a £200m mining investment is a local company digging up a small part of Ireland for gold dust, and probably pixies.

On another note, it has been commented on that I use commas quite a lot.  I like to think this is because I enjoy a slow, educated speech and try and get my typing to reflect the same casual, unhurried approach.  However it does involve me losing out on my touch typing skills, as where my left hand stays well aligned, my right keeps moving down so my index finger can push the comma key.  But then no sacrifice, no victory, as the old Witwicky motto went.

Never mind.  Thus endeth the somewhat random and topic-skipping blog entry.  If it reads somewhat disjointed like I wrote it in many parts then just bolted it all together, that's because that's what I did.  Take that, society.

Peace out!
J/xx

Wait....


Rats.


So anyway, the world still exists, and judging by my writing here, I am still procrastinating from doing my PhD.  However, despite this, there is a large change as now I am procrastinating from doing something that I know what I need to do, as opposed to before when I was procrastinating from doing my PhD when I had no idea what to do with it.  So yes, I should be reading papers and comparing numerical results, but I'm not.  Perhaps I'll have a day of it tomorrow, but I wouldn't count on that either.

Normally I write a blog entry with something useful to say, or a rant to go on, but this time I have neither, so instead, I have decided to list things that amuse me, in no particular order.
People who leave political messages on their blogs, telling me that they have worked out which president is best for America when they haven't even managed to learn to spell.
Watching small children try to convince their parents that McDonalds would be a tasty and rewarding lunch stop.
Watching parents try to convince their children that going shopping for Mummy's clothes is a fun way to spend a morning.
People who think they can weight lift, but cheat their lifts, and even with that, don't lift more than a well trained monkey.
Imagining all the ways Gordon Brown could get embarrassed through political failures in the next week.
Imagining what would happen if the biggest paid footballers tried to play rugby for a match.
Imagining Christiano Ronaldo crying and whimpering with pain over a soft tackle in the above match.
Telling people things that "she" said, then laughing at them as they fail to work out a comeback that isn't "that's what she said".
People who think playing the lottery will win them money "by the law of averages".
People called Sharon Gillard.
Academics who think they actually know anything of any real use.
Not watching reality TV shows.
Wondering how many TV channels we will need before they have one exclusively devoted to re-running adverts for products that no longer exist.
Resorting to primary-school slang, especially concerning the alternative meanings of pencil and pencil sharpener.
Tony Blair in negative equity.
Imagining a world where I could use the exclamation mark to comment any orders and thus not have to follow them.
Going into PC world and asking for windows Vista on 3.5" floppies.
Ringing up the IT helpdesk and asking why my password is changed to 8 asterisks.
Insisting whatever film is being discussed had a walk on part written for Prince Charles, but he turned it down.
Looking at people, then opening a book entitled "Assassination targets" and studying it closely.
Pretending I'm from a secret branch of the government that monitors people's use of apostrophes in internet communication.
Trying to convince people George W. Bush is really Bin Laden with a Mission Impossible style face mask.
Adding the phrase "except in case of world war" to the end of any sentence.
Imagining the black floor tiles are really laser beams, then laughing at the people who would've cut their feet off.

Well, that cheered me up anyway!
Peace out,
Johan/xx

I just read a fair few comments on one of the independent blog articles about ethical shopping.  In true sheep fashion, those angry hippy's berate the shops exploiting the poor working conditions of the asian clothes factories.  But the problem is they seem to be unable to achieve the understanding of a few things.

1) Understand cheap clothes are not nessecarily the most exploited.
Let's get one thing straight.  Shops that can affort to sell clothes cheaply must've bought them cheaply.  They have to make a profit, and that requires a mark-up of some description to cover overheads, staff wages, etc.  However, Primark (the focus of this particular advert) have pretty much zero expense when it comes to advertising, they also don't bother with branded clothes, non-regular sizes, or anything that might look too much like complicated clothing or excessive range in the stock.  This enables them to buy in bulk and keep costs down.  But let's look at Nike, for example, who sell very expensive clothes.  Clearly the ethics behind charging £70 for a pair of trainers that offer no more features than some at £20 is beside the point.  Regardless of the price they sell at, the cheaper you make them the more profit you get.  Remember Michael Jordan?  He got paid more for one advert than all the chineese factory workers did that year, combined.  Then there's Levi, convicted of using asian prison labour to make their clothes.  Expensive clothes, cheap clothes, the fact is that businessess almost always are trying to make the biggest profit possible.

2) Thinking that the sweatshop worker's salaries are comparable.
Ok, ok, so they are in a bad condition, and it's not an ideal job.  But statistics like £0.50p a day wage only tell half the truth.  Maybe if they were paying morgages on £200,000 houses, or paying £4,000 tution fees, then we'd be getting angrier.  But cost of living differs wildly accross the globe, and it just doesn't make sense to quote figures out of context.  They work there because it's a choice between that and starving.  Boycotting clothes shops will only put them out of a job.  There are better ways to get real, lasting and decent change.

3)Blaming the companies for the problems.
And the most important point finally surfaces.  If I work in McDonalds, I start on the minimum wage.  Why is this?  Are they nice people who want me to be happy?  Maybe, but I don't think so.  Minimum wage, working conditions, hours of working legislation, all come from the government and the EU.  Those "developing world" contries aren't so interested in the state of their workforce.  It's the government who are living in big houses driving nice cars, while they see their country get ever more invested in by the Western World.

So yes, fair trade clothes are a good idea, and yes, it's not fair to these people to have to work in circumstances like this.  But it's the political side of it that allows it all to keep happening.  No-one is going to come down hard on India and China, because we rely on them for so much that contributes to our standard of life.  And if the government finally admits that we all need to take our standard of life down, then we'll only end up with angry voters, and no government wants that.

Fundamentally, there are just too many people in the world for everyone to get to Western lifestyles.  Let's see how many people would be willing to trade their lives for that of the brits in the 1920's to let people in Africa have western-standard healthcare.  Let's see how many people would get rid of their car to let the poverty-stricken people in Asia be able to have an education.  Giving from your surpluss is easy, but sacrificing your life for those around the world you'll never meet?  That'll be a tough piece of social revolution needing to fit into place.

Yes folks, the English celebration of folk running with gaity around a maypole, winding ribbons with extrordinary beauty around what appears to be a flagpole, but may well be some deeply surpressed symbol of uprising, politcal irony, sexuality, or even an iconic sculpture depicting the fate of the UK sporting achievements (golden little sphere at the top, somewhat like a certain trophy they won in 1966, and then plummeting down in a vertical streak of whiteness ever since), is upon us again.

To many people, this grand adventure into the month of May heralds upon them the month of their birthday, (myself included), as seemingly 9months before the month of May, in the height of summer, global warming had not yet happened and there was no sign of the increased sticky, sweaty and unappealing love-making conditions that now exist during August.  Which, incidentally, is why I could never understand why people insist on honeymooning in hot places.  Surely somewhere like the ice-hotel in finland, or wherever it was, would be a much better place.  But I diverge to far from my origional topic, and probably disclose too much of my origional mind.  If any of it is still left to be disclosed, after the media's attempts to brainwash me.

To others (getting back on track with a clunking gear change remenisent of those learning to drive days, which I didn't ever do in May, as I was too studious to be wasting those precious months of potential revision goodness cruising around with big L plates attatched to me), May day is simply a good ol' fashioned extra day off.  And why shouldn't it be?  I mean, we've worked long and hard since Easter and are in full merit of an additional day off.  Well, I say "we", when in actual fact what I reall mean is "you", because all I've done is watch my PhD code break frequently, play online Chess, and get bored of the rest of the internet.

But we don't really know much about the origins of May Day.  Given that the summer solstice (June 21st, although it used to be the 25th, because those rascally old-school pagans aren't really clever enough to time how long the sun is in the sky with any real accuracy) is apparently mid-summer, that makes May the 1st the start of summer.  Which is obviously isn't.

So, if you want to wrap your pole with ribbons, or crown the queen of may, or leave may baskets containing confectionary on peoples doorsteps today, then go ahead.  But in reality, those of us who have a lawn, will probably attempt to (or at least plan to) mow it on Monday, and the rest of us will sit back, probably sheltering under the torrents of rainfall, and enjoy the start of the great british summer.


Incidentally, Google have not adopted this great festival of frivolity with their logo, instead doing something by some guy called Jeff Koons, who is clearly American, because he can't spell Geoff, and therefore knows nothing about art.  And that sweeping statement is a suitable place to end, methinks!

Peace out!

So it turns out my speakers just needed a new 2A Slo Blo fuse, my monitor works (mostly) if the computer boots from shut down and not sleep, and if this doesn't work, I unplug my monitor and plug it in again.  In addition to this, I have found the excitement that is global hotkey Show/Hide on winamp, and MarioKart is coming out tomorrow.

In addition to this, I think my code actually works (ish).  This is more exciting than sliced bread, toast, and melting butter combined.

I shall go home, vacuum the floor, cook dinner, and enjoy a whole new world of stress-free happiness, despite the Stirling hitting rock bottom, the economy looking like inflation will destroy it just before recession and house price crashing, and the fact I will have MarioKart Wii on my desk for around 8 hours before I can play it.

Life is good*.

Peace out!
Johan

*please note that "good" as defined by a gradstudent is actually one which normal people would generally define as "not great", or some normal people would define it as "terrible" as they probably don't have a big pile of supernoodles.

So it turns out that it is completely possible for two expensive items of electronic goods to completely die on me on the same day without anything happening.  My Samsung 19" monitor has decided to give itself a resolution fault every time I plug it into anything, and my speakers just refuse to believe they are plugged in.  Best case scenario involves buying one slo blo fuse and downloading a driver, worst case scenario involves £300+ spent on new electronics.

Sometimes life just enjoys poking you in the eye.

UPDATE - As can be seen by this lovely person - http://www.gumtree.com/london/05/14858805.html - the fault isn't exactly unique.  Which means PC World should be able to fix it for around half the price of the monitor (and that's probably an unrealistically low quote).  But then PC world is over an hours walk away, and full of incompetant non-tech-savy greasy teenagers.  (No offence to the people who work in PC world, it's just those that fit the afforementioned description are not those I'd trust to fix a hardware problem even I can't figure out where to start with.

Maybe I'll just steal this monitor from work... I'm sure they couldn't mind too much, right?

It says something about the British Public when a story about the FTSE falling over 2.5% in less than one day is overtaken in popularity on the BBC news site by the details of the McCartney vs. Mills divorce settlement, and the news of the ABBA session drummer being found dead.

The most alarming thing about the Credit crisis and impending recession is how little anyone seems to be paying it heed.

sigh.

Ah, behold the fiasco presented by the joys of one religious person commenting about another religious ideal being imported.  I refer, of course, to the joys of Dr Rowan Williams, aka the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his recent comments.  But before I come down on one side or another, in any particular way, let me first state one thing that needs to be dealt with first.  Dr Williams was not, in any way, suggesting that we should scrap the UK laws, or that Muslims should be exempt from UK law.  Also, let us clarify that Dr Williams is not a looney, and nor is he "thinking out loud."

The fact is, the UK has become hospitable, and sensitive to the fairly large Muslim contingency that has arrived over our borders.  The state of this being a good or bad thing, is neither here nor there, and will largely be swayed by your political outlook.  But there is little doubt in the fact that we have welcomed those of the Muslim faith, and allowed them to settle in our country and practise their religion in the way they see fit.  Personally, I think that this has both pro's and cons.  Of course the state has no right to tell people how to practise their religion, unless it conflicts with the laws already in place (assuming those laws are proper and decent).

So the fuss, really, comes down to the fact that there are parts of the Muslim law that aren't covered by British law, and as such, it seems fair that we allow this to be a legal standing.  After all, is it not a bit hypocritical for the UK to welcome these people in but tell them to leave their religion at the door?  As a nation, we surely have to expect the law of the land to be followed first.  But assuming that following a religious law will not contravene that, is there a problem with allowing these people to be challenged under the laws they have chosen to abide by?

I think, that is what Dr Williams was referring to.  Funny how things can be twisted out of context and all proportion, eh?

Peace out!

You may have noticed in the world of the news, that there is a slightly large fiasco about a certain MP having been bugged during his visits to a detained terrorist-suspect wanted by the USA.  But why exactly is there such a fuss about this whole idea anyway?

For starteres, MPs seem to have a problem with the idea that they might be bugged.  This was first raised under the (suprise suprise) Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who was somewhat alarmed that MI5 would run riot over his telephone and listen in to his conversations without merit.  He then proposed a bill that effectively banned the idea of monitoring any conversation of an MP, which is known as "Wilson's Law".  Unsuprisingly, when put to a vote where only MPs can express an opinion, it got passed without too much hassle.

However, the sheer notion that members of Parliment, the theoretical rock of our society, can consistently and blatantly place themselves above the law of the nation they are reported to govern, is not only unconstitional, it's severly immoral and without defense.  And this bugging incident isn't the only time that MPs flout the legal system.  Remember the "freedom of informationa ammendment" where they decided that MPs didn't have to release any of the info that everyone else needs to.  Or perhaps you'd care to consider the whole row over funding, where despite many attempts to "clean up" the system, we still see several MPs being investigated about where their money came from.  Given the government watches every penny that comes into my account and knows where it all comes from, incase they can tax me some more, I find this somewhat unbelievable.  Seemingly, they are equally vauge and un-checked when it comes to their expenses, as well.  Perhaps it's time for a little bit more transparency in the dealings of people, who are, after all, supposed to be setting examples to us.

So yes, an MP was bugged.  But then he was talking to a US-wanted terror suspect.  What exactly did he expect?  A time alone in an unwatched room with plenty of opportunity to reveal things of potential importance while no-one was listening?  Come on, I really don't believe that Mr MP would want that either.

Given Parliment created the surveilance society, I see no reason that they should be exempt from it.  How else do we have accountability in this world?  Heck, I think we should permenantly bug cabinet members phones.  If they aren't doing anything wrong, whats to be scared of, eh?  At least that's the line they keep pumping us, so howabout they take their own medicine.

You can't go round creating a country that doesn't apply to you.  That's a common trait shared with Mugabe, Hitler, and Hussein.  Not sure Mr Blair and Mr Brown would enjoy being in that list.

Reason to Live, by KISS, just popped up on WinAmp, and I thought that such well crafted lyrics merited a post.  Another almost zero-effort blog entry, I know, but I'm sure I'll manage a good one at some point!

Out of love, there's nobody around, all I hear is the sound of a broken heart
Out of time, no more waiting for you
Now the hurting is through, and a new day starts
And I feel a change in my life, I sailed into dark and endless nights
And made it alive
Chorus:
Everybody's got a reason to live, baby
Everybody's got a dream and a hunger inside
Everybody's got a reason to live, but it cant be your love

Out of touch, with myself for so long, now a feeling so strong coming over me
Down the line, there's a lesson I've learned
You can love and get burned, if it has to be
And I see a change in my life, and I'm not alone when I'm strong inside
And I realize

Chorus

And I feel a change in my life
And I'm not alone when I'm strong inside and I realize

Chorus

No it cant be your love, no it cant be your love
No it cant be your love

Ok, ok, so the last bit wasn't hugely inspired, but give the guys a break, eh?  They did save Santa, after all.

Sometimes I wish I could make hot cakes out of old rope, then set up a stall and sell them.