Live and Let Live

I've had a thought. Is it enough to say "live and let live" anymore?

This is something I've seen come up usually in the realms of controversial issues like homosexuality and gay marriage. A lot of gay people take the opinion of "I don't care what people think as long as they don't try to take my rights away".

This definitely makes sense to a degree, but I would rather have more from a 21st century society. I don't want these stupid people thinking the way they do. Live and let live is a concept that breeds hate. If you allow these people to believe these idiotic things, then it'll spread and more people will believe it.

Socrates said that ignorance leads to hate, and I have to agree with this. When people don't understand something then they tend to be critical of it. Another example of this is the current economic situation and the bailout plan currently being implemented by the United States. Many people are critical of Barack Obama, even though they don't actually understand how it works. People tend to forget that the plan was actually introduced by the Bush administration. Instead, they use something they do not understand to support their already deep-rooted opinions.

The only reason that Barack Obama is in my mind is because I was on twitter and saw some really stupid things being said about him. For example, Muammar al-Gaddafi spoke kindly of Barack Obama, and someone said "if the world's evil people like you does that say something about you?" The stupidity really hurts my head. To me, it isn't enough to have these people believing these stupid things. Something has to be done.

Yes, I want my cake and I want to eat it too. The fact is that if somebody strongly disagrees with your way of living, then it is likely will try to change it, either directly or indirectly. An example is Proposition 8 in California last year. I'm sure many gay people in California had the attitude of "live and let live" with the people who opposed gay marriage. Well in November, those people voted yes on Prop 8 and gay marriage was banned in California.

Should we just let people continue believing hateful and ridiculous things? Or should we try to educate them further and bring them round to a 21st century way of thinking?

I've made my opinion clear. Education really is the way forward.

Thanks for reading,
x

Banning Mobile Phones

I was stuck watching GMTV this morning. For those who don't know, it's mindless morning television that might as well not talk about the news because their opinions are so stupid and idiotic.

Anyway, they were doing a feature about whether or not mobile phones should be banned in public. I couldn't actually believe what I was watching. Everybody who texted or e-mailed in agreed that it should be. I was literally in shock. Sometimes I forget how stupid most people are, then I get reminded in a really annoying way. Whenever I heard that they were getting an etiquette expert on, I knew it would only get worse.

Right, so here are the basic arguments.

• People talking loudly in public places is annoying and disruptive.
• People talking on their phones in cinemas or restaurants is very disruptive.
• Being subjected to sitting beside somebody on the bus who is on the phone is horrific.
• It's really annoying to only hear one half of a conversation.
• Phones are banned on aeroplanes, so why not on other forms of public transport?
• Mobile phones have taken over our lives and, apart from in emergencies, they are unnecessary.

Okay, so let's address each of these ridiculous arguments one at a time.

People talking loudly in public places is annoying and disruptive
It must just be me, but I don't go into public places for a bit of peace and quiet. Whenever I'm out on the street and I can hear somebody talking loudly on their mobile phone, it really does not disturb me. There is probably traffic noise and people talking to one another on the street, so it won't be quiet anyway. I find this argument to be stupid and petulant.

People talking on their phones in cinemas or restaurants is very disruptive
This one I largely agree with. It can be annoying if somebody is talking on their phone in a cinema whenever the movie is playing. And if they are talking loud in a restaurant, that can be annoying. However I tend to find that people don't really talk louder than they would when they are talking to the people in their physical vicinity. If the person is literally shouting (like they were in the example they played on GMTV), then I would complain. Less than that, I'd be a bit annoyed.

Being subjected to sitting beside somebody on the bus who is on the phone is horrific
I understand that, to the etiquette expert, sitting on a bus in the first place must be humiliating enough. Having to slum it with all the working-class people, how horrible! She described one time when she was sitting on the window seat, and a girl was sitting beside her. The girl was on the phone the entire bus journey and the woman heard everything the girl got up to the night before. The worst part was that she was "trapped" as she couldn't move.

Really? She couldn't move? If it bothered me that much, I would have moved. This girl was so annoying though! So annoying that the woman was "trapped" and "forced" to eavesdrop on this person's conversation.

It's really annoying to only hear one half of a conversation
Get your own conversation. You have no right to hear someone else's full conversation. If it bothers you so much, ask the person talking to put their phone on loudspeaker so you can hear the other side. Better yet, just ask to talk to whoever they are talking to! I'm sure they will really appreciate that.

Phones are banned on aeroplanes, so why not on other forms of public transport?
Yeah, you are right, phones are banned on aeroplanes. However that is only because there is a very slim chance that a phone signal could take down a plane (although it is debated whether there is a chance at all - another topic for another day). Your phone will not blow up a bus or a train. Buses do not use the same complex navigation technology that planes use. Whoever uses this argument should be locked in a cage until they've learnt their lesson.

Mobile phones have taken over our lives and, apart from in emergencies, they are unnecessary
This is the worst argument if you ask me. It really is the worst. I agree with one part, in an emergency, mobile phones are great. If you are being raped, a mobile phone makes it really easy to call the police. And, mobile phones are a big part of some people's lives, but I do not think they have "taken over" our lives. We may use them a lot, but we also see a lot of advertisements. In fact, I would say that we don't lift our phone as often as we see an advertisement. However I do not think that advertising has "taken over" our lives either. It's just something that is there. Why can people not have something without it taking over their lives.

But the worst part, is saying that mobile phones are unnecessary. Let's face it, if we didn't have mobile phones, we would use a landline. Mobile phones have not changed the fact that people talk on the phone, however it has made it easier to call somebody when you are out. This, if you ask me, is not unnecessary. With the innovation of the internet, and e-mail, the world is getting smaller. You can send something to someone who lives thousands of miles away and they will receive it in seconds. That is amazing! Mobile phones have revolutionised how businesses run, how people communicate on a day-to-day basis, how we access information. Mobile phones are an amazing invention! They are not something to look down on or scowl about. Be glad that you live in a time were communicating with people is as easy as pressing a button.

To conclude, mobile phones are wonderful. And should not be banned. Ever. Get over your petty little hang-ups. Additionally, don't worry about your etiquette or manners. Those people are too hung up on the smallest of details that they can't appreciate the world we live in today.

The subtlety in popular lyrics is lost

I don't know if anyone has been listening to the radio recently. If you have, then you will have noticed how there is literally no subtlety in popular music anymore. This isn't just me getting older, as younger people are noticing it too.

I remember whenever sexual innuendo in songs went only as far as:
Boom boom boom boom
I want you in my room
Let's spend the night together
From now until forever
Boom boom boom boom
I wanna double boom
Let's spend the night together
Together in my room
And that was like "wow, explicit" back then. Now, well now there is just no attempt to be even slightly subtle. Here's an example from Kelly Rowland's "Work It (Put It In)":
(Put It In) Check it baby, get it baby, check it baby get it(work)
Do it baby d-do it, d-do it baby get it (put it in)
Check it baby, get it baby, check it baby get it (work)
Do it baby d-do it, d-do it baby get it (go hard)
Check it baby, get it baby, check it baby get it
Do it baby d-do it, d-do it baby get it
Don’t come around if you gone let me down
You gotta get it all the way in
I wanna see you work
I can't be the only one who thinks that is not exactly "sexy". This song does not make me want to have sex with Kelly Rowland. It's probably the least sexy thing i've ever heard on the radio.

How about this from "Right Round" by Flo Rida:
You spin my head right round, right round
When you go down, when you go down down
I wonder what he's taking about! Hmm, maybe he's talking about going to going down to the wine cellar to get a nice bottle of Sauvignon Blanc. Or perhaps he's referring to going down to the shops to purchase some headache tablets for his spinning head. Or maybe, you know, he's being very obvious and talking about how he loves it when a girl performs fellatio on him! Yeahh! That's it! It get's worse when the girl in the song repeats it. Yay! I really like the thought of Flo Rida performing cunnilingus on some disgusting girl! Thanks for that!

Lady Gaga's "LoveGame":
Let's have some fun, this beat is sick
I wanna take a ride on your disco stick
That's pretty obvious isn't it?

Oh and, on the topic of Lady GaGa. Why hasn't anyone noticed how all her songs sound the same? Have a look:
P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face

Papa-paparazzi

We just like to party, like to p-p-party yeah
What is it with her and that "pa" sound?

Anyway, I'm off now.

Sorry for the lack of textual blogging recently. I've just finished work for the summer now so I should be able to do more of it :).

Oh and, I've added a re-tweet button on each post, so feel free to do so!

I passed 2,500 views recently. That's insane.

Anyway, rambling on.

Goodbye!
x

The Twelfth

I've spoken quite a bit here about religion and I've also spoken quite a bit about Northern Ireland. The topics have crossed (as you would imagine them to), and this is one of those posts.

The Twelfth of July is a very special time for many people in Northern Ireland. It is when people line the streets (mostly Protestants but I won't doubt that there are Catholics who go too) and watch Protestant men march down carrying banners that glorify the men who fought to keep Northern Ireland Protestant.

Sounds alright?

Yeah, no.

This is a tradition that has been around for hundreds of years in some areas. It comes from a time whenever the division between Protestant and Catholic was much stronger. A little history lesson for you. The Battle of the Boyne is pretty much the battle were Northern Ireland was kept Protestant. Over a thousand Catholics were killed and around 700 Protestants died too. I know, a war fought over religion, some things never change.

The men on the aforementioned banners are men who killed Catholics in battle (which makes it okay - obviously), and Protestants want to march through areas which have a strong Catholic community in them, holding these banners. Why are people shocked whenever violence kicks off every single year?

Another problem I have is the Eleventh of July. This is what is known as Bonfire Night. In England, people gather round bonfires on November 5th and burn effigies of Guy Fawkes. In Northern Ireland, people gather round bonfires on July 11th and burn effigies of the Pope. Pleasant people, I know.

Have a look at this picture.



The sign underneath says "Keep Ulster tidy so kill all Taigs". If you don't know, "taig" is a derogatory term for Catholic.

This is what I'm talking about. Not only is this highly sectarian and hateful, it's also very damaging to the environment.

To be honest, my opinion is that if Northern Ireland wants to move on as a country and aim for "peace", then it needs to ditch this primitive annual ritual. It is like a wedge that stays in between the two sides of Northern Ireland, and until it's removed, they will never come closer.

That's it for now. I'm going to post more soon.

Thanks for reading,
Simon.
x

The Pope cries tears of hypocrisy and lies

Today I read in the newspaper that the Pope was "visibly upset" when he heard the "revelation" about the clerical abuse of young children.

"Pope Benedict was “visibly upset” by horrific revelations of sexual, physical and emotional torture of children uncovered by the Ryan inquiry, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin revealed yesterday."

Am I the only one who reads this and is shocked by the stunning hypocrisy in it? The Pope led the cover-up of child abuse in the Catholic church. This was not a "revelation" for Mr Ratzinger. The Pope knew all along about the child molestation, and his reaction was to cover it up. I was actually disgusted when I read this. The Pope pretended to weep when he was faced in public with the Ryan report. He is a fake, as if we didn't already know that.

How long are we going to rely on someone like the Pope. How long is it going to be until we grow out of this childish habit of following this old deranged man who wears stupid clothes and looks like a villain from Star Wars. The Pope is a mentally ill old man, and nobody should listen to him. He should be in a padded cell, not living it up in the Vatican.

The longer we look to the Pope for advice on moral and social issues, the longer it is going to take for us to advance. The Pope is holding us back, pure and simple. He is not the only thing that holds us back, but he is a strong contributing factor. One day, we will look back and feel ashamed that people used to listen to this crazy old man who is out of touch with society but still holds power to control people.

I know this is like, my third rant on the Pope, but he's a worthy target. Okay, he's not "worthy", but he deserves it. It is also bad journalism for the newspapers to report that the Pope was "visibly upset" about the child abuse without bringing up the fact that he covered it up.

I don't know what else to say. Fuck the Pope.

I'm sorry I haven't been posting in the last two weeks. I've had exams, then I had to pack up all my stuff to move back home as I've finished the first year of university. Writing this has got be back into the way of it though. Expect more soon. I have some ideas for reviews and things.

Anyway, talk to you all soon.

x

The Simpsons hit a new low

I think that everyone can agree that The Simpsons really is beyond it's prime. The show became really commercialised and every episode would have a different special guest to try and drag in the viewers. I really wonder if the writers behind The Simpsons have just become completely creatively bankrupt and have nothing else to bring to the table. Personally, I think the show should have ended a few years ago.

Maybe it's just my age. Maybe I've just grown out of The Simpsons, but I watch the older episodes and they still make me laugh, I still love them. The new episodes lack any charm, as well as any real comedy writing. It kind of reminds me of wrestling. When I was younger I used to love watching the WWF/WWE, even though I knew it was fake. That didn't change anything. I still look back on those times and remember how good the story lines were and how captivating it could be. Now it's just weak and dated. Some things have their time yet refuse to die.

The Simpsons reminds me of an old woman in a hospital on a life support machine, clinging to what's left of her dwindling life. A younger person who has their whole life ahead of them might need the bed she's lying in, but she refuses to relent. Some call it spirit, I call it selfish. How shows like Arrested Development can get cancelled yet The Simpsons is still going into it's 20th season baffles me.

What inspired me to write this is a news article I pretty much just read. Susan Boyle is being mentioned in The Simpsons. Homer is in front of Simon Cowell and states that his dream is "to be a great singer like Susan Boyle." There isn't even subtlety in that. They are just so obviously plugging the name to get some people to watch it. Susan Boyle is not a celebrity. All she has done is go on one episode of a talent show, and she's treated like an international superstar. In two years, nobody will talk about her. She's a blip on the radar. Nothing more.

Unless The Simpsons can do something spectacular and really start to put out some more good episodes, they are dead in the water. I think after 20 seasons, it's time to call it quits.

I could probably talk on and on about this, but I'll leave it here.

Talk to you soon :)

Byeee
x

The faux-patriotism of Eurovision

The Eurovision song contest is on this weekend.

Here's the thing about Eurovision. Sometimes you really can get some fantastic talents who sing in it and put on a great show. They are never from Great Britain though. For some bizarre reason, Britain seems to think that every Eurovision entry has to have this faux-patriotism that nobody really feels in Britain apart from during international events like Eurovision or the Olympics.

I hate this shit. This is awful. This is absolute drivel. I'm sorry Jade Ewen, but I know nothing about you. You tell me that you have all this desire in your heart, but nobody knows anything about you. Okay this is a little unfair because she didn't write the song. But really, do we need another Leona Lewis? I don't even think that we need Leona Lewis, let alone another, less talented, copy.

That video is the biggest piece of self-indulgent crap. I hope that Britain gets zero points. Not because I want to see them lose, but I want them to see that this is not the way to win Eurovision. Other countries enter actual stars and singers. Why do we always have to go for failed X-Factor contestants or failed pop bands from a few years prior? The reason they failed or lost was because they were not popular. Why make them represent the country if they aren't popular?! Finland won when they entered Lordi as their representatives. Lordi are not great singers, by a long way. But they put on a show and everyone loved it.

Why doesn't Britain enter someone who has worldwide acclaim? Someone who can really get people behind them? I don't care about Jade Ewen. She incites no emotions in me. She's just another reality TV show singer. Why not get an artist or a band that people will know and that can put on a show. Why not get a band that are British and can really show Eurovision what Britain is about.

I mean, I don't like Take That as much as the next guy, but come on, they'd probably win Eurovision. Their popularity would be enough to overcome the politics of Eurovision. It's what happened with Lordi and it could happen again with a band like Take That. The countries would rather vote for the group that everyone loves than vote for the country that they usually vote for. I won't get into the politics behind Eurovision really but, a good artist can overcome that. These people don't have to sing about Britain and all this stupid non-patriotism. Just make sure that they are British and have a good song. Does Hard Rock Hallelujah say anything about Finland? Of course not.

Another band who I think would do wonders for Britain in Eurovision would be Muse. A band who can put on a hell of a fucking show and have worldwide acclaim. That would make me proud to be British (even though I'm not technically British). Everyone would vote for Britain if Muse represented them. I'm sure there are contractual reasons why these bands can't do Eurovision, but if Lordi can do it then why can't Take That or Muse?

Right, let's get to the real problem with this song. The writing. Jesus Christ Andrew Lloyd Webber. You've written some wonderful pieces of music in your career. Whenever I heard that you would be writing the Eurovision entry for 2009 I was actually excited to see what you would come out with. However I actually think that you've come up with something worse than ever before. This is horrible. This is worse than that "Flying The Flag" shit from a few years back. At least that was campy and a bit of a joke. This is just patronising and shit and nobody really cares if it's her time.
It's my time, it's my time
My moment, I'm not gonna let go of it
My time, it's my time
And I'll stand proud
There's nothing I'm afraid of
I'll show you what I'm made of
Show you that it's my time now
Seriously Andrew? Seriously? You wrote this down on a piece of paper and thought it would pass? This is a fucking fail. Thanks to you and your stupid TV show, Britain will not win this year. Not only will they not win, they'll fail horribly. This song is trying to make people care, but what does it say about Britain? Nothing. That's fine. I recommended Muse, and they would almost definitely play a song that has nothing to do with Britain. But that's a good thing. They also wouldn't play a song with this stupid fake patriotism and belief and desire that isn't really there.

Maybe I'll be wrong. Maybe Britain will do well. I'll write a blog about that if they do. I won't retract what I'm saying here because it'll still be true.

This rant really has been long enough.

I've been listening to Ween a lot recently. God that band is awesome.

Right well anyway, I best go to bed. I don't get enough comments on my posts, so you should leave one to this post. What do you think about Eurovision? Who would you like to see represent your country in Eurovision (even if your country isn't quite in Europe).

Yeah anyway.

BYE.
x

Susan Boyle is not a freakshow

If you don't know who Susan Boyle is, YouTube her name. There are about a million videos of her singing on Britain's Got Talent.

I will not doubt that she has a beautiful voice. She really is wonderfully talented. She will probably go onto win, judging by the amount of publicity she is getting at the minute. A similar thing happened with Paul Potts two years ago. He became an "internet sensation" and ended up winning. I guess sites like YouTube are starting to really affect who people vote for on reality television shows like Britain's Got Talent.

Anyway, that is not the point of this post.

What I don't like is the fact that people are so surprised that she can sing. I just read a BBC news report about the fact that she's ugly but is still talented. It's been nearly two weeks since the original show aired but still people are talking about how amazing it is.

Let me tell you something, her voice is amazing, but it is not amazing that she can sing like that. For some reason, people have this idea that anyone who is ugly, cannot be a success. And when they are a success, it is a "sensation". My problem is that people are still talking about it as if she was a corpse that came back to life and started singing. She clearly is very talented. She is also clearly not the best looking person ever. The two things are not mutually exclusive. An ugly face does not pertain to ugly vocal chords.

When she walked out on stage, she was getting boo's and wolf-whistles already, before she'd even sung. I hate these people. There's a difference between judging a book by it's cover, and actively jeering a book because of it's cover.

Sometimes I feel that judging a book by it's cover is important. First appearances are vital in many aspects of life. However, to jeer and make fun of someone because of their appearance is ridiculous.

I read an article from The Guardian that said that this was a gender issue. The author of the article said this:

"Why are we so shocked when "ugly" women can do things, rather than sitting at home weeping and wishing they were somebody else? Men are allowed to be ugly and talented. Alan Sugar looks like a burst bag of flour. Gordon Ramsay has a dried-up riverbed for a face. Justin Lee Collins looks like Cousin It from The Addams Family. Graham Norton is a baboon in mascara. I could go on. But a woman has to have the bright, empty beauty of a toy - or get off the screen."

Right, I totally disagree. I don't think this was a gender issue at all. I think that if people saw an ugly man standing on stage, they too would make the presumption that they would not be talented. Look at Paul Potts for example. Alan Sugar and Gordon Ramsey are famous because they made a name for themselves outside of the entertainment industry. There simply is no connection between Susan Boyle and Alan Sugar. Do you really think that the producers of The Apprentice would decide not to have Alan Sugar as the main man because he's a bit ugly? He's a business man, who cares what he looks like.

I don't agree that Justin Lee Collins and Graham Norton are particularly ugly people. They are not on the same scale as Susan Boyle, to be honest. But again these are people who did not become famous in the first place for their appearance or even their personality on the screen. Both Justin Lee Collins and Graham Norton started off on radio. If you make a name for yourself on the radio, and people know that you are talented, it doesn't matter what you look like. People will hire you if you are popular and talented. Susan Boyle is both of those. There are plenty of ugly women who are famous. Just watch an episode of Loose Women.

So, my point is that I wish people would stop commenting on how surprised they were when she started singing. Ditch your presuppositions that ugly people (not just women) cannot do anything with themselves. Susan Boyle is wonderfully talented, and she will probably win the competition. Focus on her talent, not her face.

That's all for now, but I'm in a writing mood, I might post another blog before the day is out.

Ta-ra for now.
x

1,000,000 people I will never be friends with

What is this crazy madness of bloggage?

I just realised that Fred is about 2,000 subscribers away from 1 million subscribers. Considering he gets about 5 subscribers a minute, if not more, I reckon he'll hit the 1 million mark tonight. I'm blogging about it literally because it'll happen while I'm asleep.

I don't even bother to wonder why people are still subscribing to him. It's flat out depressing. At least I know that Fred's subscriber list doubles up as a "People I would never be friends with" list. If I happen to see they are subscribed to Fred, then they cannot be friends with me. You can't even use the excuse of "subscribing for the lulz", or keeping up so you can bitch every time he uploads a new video. How difficult is it to type "Fred" into Google? His channel is the first result so, it's pretty easy to get there without subscribing.

Am I the only one who thinks that he has a very punchable face? I'm not a violent person, but I think it'd be satisfying to punch him right between the eyes.

Who knows, maybe it's just me.

I somehow doubt it.

.Anger.

I know I'm taking part in Blog Every Day April, but nobody said I couldn't post more than once a day :)

Yeah, that's the smiles done for this post though. I'm not really in a good mood. I just watched news reports of the riots in London over the G20 summit.

These people are an absolute disgrace to society. They are trying to get their point across by making the most noise and causing the biggest furore. That doesn't make them right.

Their issue is that the 20 richest countries in the world should be looking into tackling climate change and poverty as opposed to the global credit crisis.

Let me tell you something, this global economic crisis is hella more important than climate change and poverty at the minute. This may be difficult for these people to understand, but it's the truth. It's not necessarily more important in the long term, but in the short term it is. It affects everything. If there is no money then how exactly can these countries be expected to tackle things like climate change and poverty? These countries need the money to get these things done. Smashing windows of banks is not going to solve anything. I swear, I thought I was watching something like 28 Days Later or Dawn of the Dead, as opposed to the news. Herds of people were cornering the police and the police were trying to beat their way out, but failed.

These people need to figure out that the global economic crisis affects everybody, and every walk of life. It's not just the businessmen in nice jackets, it's everyone. I find it so ironic that these people are using violence to get across their point about capitalism being evil. Two wrongs do not make a right. It's just hypocritical to cause a riot on the streets of London to oppose the so called "evil" or "tyrannical" leaders of the richest countries in the world.

Eugh, it's pissed me off.

I might write another blog before this day is through.

Power to the people, and all that shit.

The Pope is a Hater

So the Vatican now has a YouTube account so that they can "spread the message further". This being the message of hate and bigotry in a website where the most subscribed includes homosexuals (Michael Buckley, Chris Crocker) and people who swear constantly (Chris Crocker, JamesNintendoNerd). How can the Pope reconcile joining a site filled with such degradation and filth whilst still being an active member of it?

I reckon that this will be something along the lines of the 10 Downing Street channel, or the Queen's channel. Maybe a few thousand subscribers, nobody will really care.

Will the Vatican actually reach out to a wider audience with YouTube? You could say that lots of people go on YouTube so it's likely. And yes, perhaps more people will see the Pope's speeches now. So in that sense, they will reach out to a wider audience. However, YouTube is a counter-culture. The people whose voices are heard on YouTube are the people whose voices are not heard in the media. That's why there is such a large Atheist base on YouTube. Is it likely that the Pope is actually going to convert people through this channel? I don't think so. The Pope gets enough publicity as it is. Yes the youth of today don't get his message, but maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

Remember the Pope's remarks about the blurring of gender leading to the self-destruction of society. This was interpreted as him saying that the world needed to be saved from homosexuality and transsexuality. You know why it was interpreted that way? Because that is what he meant. The Pope cannot defend his hate-speech. YouTube has terms and conditions against hate speech. In their community guidelines, it says:

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity

Did you catch that? The last one? Gender Identity. This is the same gender identity that the Pope believes has been blurred and would lead to the self-destruction of society. That, is hate speech. Pure and simple hate speech. I somehow doubt the Pope would get a suspension for it though.

Regardless, he's still a hateful son-of-a-bitch.

vatican (1 minute ago)
omg dis whatthebuck is such a fag

Well, that's it for today.

I think I like these rant-ish things. I can see this blog heading in that direction. Subscribe if you like the look of it :)

Eat, drink and be merry!

Torn in Two by Religion

For 18 years of my life, I lived in Northern Ireland. Most people don't even know that Northern Ireland is a wholly different country to Ireland. For a seemingly small piece of land with quite a small population (approx. 1.8 million), it has caused quite a furore around the world over the years.

If you don't know a brief history about Northern Ireland then I encourage that you go and look it up. To put it into basic terms, Protestants have been killing Catholics and Catholics have been killing Protestants for God-knows how long now. The most well known time for this was during a period known as "The Troubles" (1968-1998). One of the most emotional events was what has come to be known as "Bloody Sunday" (yes, the song is named after it). On this day, 14 unarmed nationalist civil rights demonstrators were killed by the British Army. The reason this is so significant is that it was carried out by the army, and not a paramilitary organization. It was also carried out in full public and press view. For thirty years, Northern Ireland was effectively a war zone. Tit-for-tat killings were commonplace. More people died during this 30 year period (approx. 3,100) than the September 11th attacks (2,974). Not to take anything away from the suffering of September 11th. I'm trying to put this destruction on a scale for those who may not understand. There were also approximately 47,000 people injured. It was a brutal and bloody period for a country that is supposed to be First World.

Due to this 30 year period, Northern Ireland is a bit behind the times. The UK as a whole is about 72% Christian. I don't doubt for a minute that those statistics are greatly thrown off by Northern Ireland's religiousness. The last time a census was taken, 86% of people in Northern Ireland considered themselves Christian (although, according to The Encyclopedia of Christianity by Erwin Fahlbusch, only 1% of people in Northern Ireland do not associate themselves with a religion, as opposed to the 13% in the census). I would personally tend to lean towards believing the 1% figure rather than 13%. I don't think that if you took a random selection of 10 people on the streets of Belfast that 1.3 of them would be Atheists.

Northern Ireland has what is often known as "nominal Christians". According to ComprehensiveChristian.com, a nominal Christian "... calls himself a Christian, may even be religious, but does what he wants rather than the Will of God. He disdains any real spiritual progress because that would demand denying self and he does not like that at all..." This is very common in Northern Ireland. Your denomination is more of a social group rather than what religion you assign yourself to. I can give you an example from personal experience. By the time I had come to terms with my Atheism, it was no secret to anyone. My dad referred to me as a Protestant (as we come from a Protestant family). I told him that I'm not a Protestant, I'm not even a Christian. He proceeded to tell me that if I was in a war between the Catholics and the Protestants, that I would side with the Protestants. It took me a while to explain that Protestantism is a religion, not a social class or group. I still don't think he understands it. Christians in Northern Ireland are Christians because their parents were Christians, and their parents were Christians, and so on. This is where this deep-rooted segregation in society stems from. Most Protestants and Catholics don't even know the differences between their denominations, but still they don't like each other.

Politically, Northern Ireland is "at peace". However I can speak from experience and say that sectarian violence is still a common event. I remember people my age would go out into the centre of Belfast, looking for people from the other denomination, just so they could fight. That is quite a small-scale and petty example. However there is still this closet-sectarianism that many Northern Irish people have. It would be a taboo in many households if a Protestant were to marry a Catholic. One of the most obvious examples of sectarian violence comes from football (soccer) matches. Protestant and Catholic players have been sent death threats against themselves and their families, simply because they are what they are.

I went to a part-private school. It received some Government funding and also some private funding. The school was very casually Protestant. There were "prayers" every morning which you had to attend, and consisted of a Prefect reading a verse from the Bible and then the Headmaster saying a prayer. I remember when I just started at the school, I would be made to pray. I used to keep my eyes open and my back straightened while everyone else bowed down and shut their eyes. This seemed to anger the patrol of teachers who stood around the "chapel". I remember being told, via the simple sign language of a finger pointing downwards, that I had to pray. I liked upsetting the status-quo in my school. Perhaps it was out of rebellion, but I was never a stereotypical rebellious teenager. I think my "rebellion" was justified.

In my last few years of school I grew very fond of the subject of Religious Education. This subject had always been more "Christian Education" than anything, I barely remember studying any other religions. I remember being the only Atheist in my class (or, only person who actually knew why they were an Atheist - there was this one guy who said he was an Atheist but said that he accepted that Jesus was both human and divine - he dropped out that year). I was surrounded by religious people with strong prejudices. My teacher was a Baptist, who referred to us as "dirty rotten sinners". One of my friends from the class was a Presbyterian and used arguments like "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve LOL", "if you study a well-made banana" and "if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?". Sadly, he was the second-best student in the class. I say second-best because I was the best, and that's not even me bragging.

Throughout my last years, I would always get marked down in practice exams, given bad grades in reports and told that I was definitely going to fail in RE. I firmly believe that this was simply because I was an Atheist, and the teachers did not like that an Atheist was the smartest person in the class. I maintain that this is because I was looking from the outside in, rather than the inside out. I showed them though, I got an A in my final year, the first person to do that for 6 years in the school.

The issue of religion became most evident in my school life when I became a Prefect in my final year. As I mentioned before, Prefects read from the Bible during "prayers". Naturally, I refused to do so when asked. This caused a massive furore in the school, with teachers discussing it with their classes throughout the year groups. My parents were brought in to talk with the Vice-Headmaster about the situation and we did not relent. I had to explain that the issue was not standing up in front of 400 people and reading, it was standing up in front of 400 people and reading from a book that I inherently disagree with. It would be hypocritical of me, to say the least. I remember my history teacher said to me "I teach you about communism, but I'm not a communist". Firstly, he gets paid to do it. Also, he doesn't teach us it as if it is the truth. I would be reading from the Bible as if it were the truth, and what I believe. Finally, the school relented and I was told that I didn't have to read during prayers.

I think that the last example shows quite accurately what the issue of religion is like in Northern Ireland. It is presumed. It is presumed that you are a Christian, and that you will conform. Northern Ireland is one of the most Christian countries in the world and it is not recognized as so. It is a backward country in a quite forward thinking world. I'll give you an example. Abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. It is truly ridiculous that a country that is part of the European Union can still have abortion as illegal. This is one area where religion is clearly affecting the law-making process. Recently there were pushes from Parliament to pass an amendment to the Embryology Bill that would allow abortions, but it was shelved for being "too controversial".

I think that it is clear to see that Northern Ireland has to make some dramatic changes if it wants to be considered a developed country. Firstly, the people need to shake their allegiances to what religion their father was. Secondly, Parliament has to stop making their laws based on morality. Thirdly, religion can no longer be presumed.

At least that would be a start. I grew up in a country which had been torn in two by religion, and directly saw it's effect. Maybe one day the Northern Irish people will wake up and realize that fighting over what building you go to on a Sunday is petty and pointless. I remember my dad telling me that Abortion cheapens life. Abortions or not, life in Northern Ireland is already cheap.

Twilight - A fangirl's utopia?

Unless you have literally been living under the biggest rock you could find, you will know about the money-making juggernaut that is Twilight. Most popular amongst teenage girls, it is bound to make a killing in the coming weeks as the movie hits screens worldwide with it's over-photoshopped posters of protagonists Edward Cullen and Bella Swan. It was only three years ago that the first book in the Twilight series was released, and now it is a major motion picture. The clearest comparison made is between Twilight and the Harry Potter series. The first Harry Potter movie was released four and a half years after the first book was released. At the time of writing, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has an IMDb rating of 7.2 and a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 78%. Twilight currently has an IMDb rating of 5.5 (though it goes up and down every hour) and a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 44% (again, changing all the time). Perhaps the extra year and a half has made the all-important difference.

I'm not going to come off as some kind of elitist intellectual here, however, the Twilight series is introducing many young people to a low quality of writing. Over-use of adjectives does not necessarily make a book good, just, descriptive. I'm not going to bash the book though, some people are genuinely besotted with the book, and I can respect that. However it is the Twilight fans who are your typical fangirl that I take issue with. I cite examples here from: http://www.movie-moron.com/ (my personal favourite movie website)


Author: Chelsea
Comment:
I am a HUGE Twilight fan, iv'e read all the books. I'm totally obsessed! You should all see all the three teaser twilight flims on Youtube. It's just fantastic that they could produce this book into a movie. It's so cool how so many people love it and i think, actually, know, that the cinemas will be PACKED with Twilight fans ready to see the movie. I plan to be one of those fans.

Yeah, WOW, how could they produce THIS book into a movie? Wow, this book was clearly never written with a movie adaptation in mind.


Author: lisa
Comment:
I think if you all did some research you would find that Stephenie Meyer is inlove with all the choices for actors in the movie, she has approved everything and is now picturing the actors when she thinks of Bella and Edward, she's working very closely with the director and so I feel like if she's happy then...I'm happy, afterall, it is HER vision!

Stephanie Meyer is NOT a genius. This is backed up by the fact that she now apparently pictures her original characters as two actors. That just shows how poor a writer she is, she can't even maintain her original image of the characters. Also, in the book, Edward has long bronze hair, not the short, dirty-blonde hair he has in the movie. So her new vision contradicts her original vision. Genius.


Author: XOXO LOVE ME OR NOT XOXO
Comment:
All of you idiots who keep posting naughty things about Twilight can go jump in a lake. Rachel [previous commenter], if you don't like Breaking Dawn that much, then don't read it. There are devoted fans out here who don't appreciate people like you trashing the effort of the actors and actrices who work so very hard on the movie, pointing out little flaws in the movie. If you think you're so good, why don't you just play the script? Oh, that's right...you're not good enough, and that's why you weren't cast. So shut up, please. And Ashlee [previous commenter], you can jack off. If you don't like Edward, then don't watch the movie/read the book. Just throw you're life away, because obviously it isin't worth anything if you're going to trash Edward like that.

Eternally Evil, XOXO LOVE ME OR NOT XOXO

Did you hear that? Anyone who trashes a fictional character doesn't deserve to have a life. This is just scratching the surface for some fans. These people really are lovely, I wish I could be as amazing as them and lead such a full life.


Maybe that will give you an idea as to my issue with Twilight. I have another small example here, from personal experience. Last Friday, I went to see Max Payne with my girlfriend. While I was waiting for her to turn up at the cinema, I saw a number of teenage girls walk in. One was wearing multi-coloured leg warmers, pleasantly combined with a multi-coloured tutu and a black top that was easily two sizes too small. She, and her three friends, screamed and ran straight over to a cardboard cut-out of the Twilight poster, and began taking pictures of them on their camera phones. I didn't understand this, they could get a higher quality version of it on the internet.

I digress. "Twilight is the new Harry Potter" (National Post). Oh joy, Harry Potter hasn't even gone away yet, and we already have a "new Harry Potter". This reminds me something of footballers being compared to past greats. Cristiano Ronaldo is "the new George Best", Lionel Messi is "the new Diego Maradona". However, if you notice, these claims are usually made after the past great is in the past-tense, i.e., after they've retired. You never really hear of a player being described of a "new" version of another player who is still playing football at a professional level. John Smith is "the new Cristiano Ronaldo". It sounds stupid, because Cristiano is in his prime now. Don't ask why I've used a football analogy, I can't explain it. Sorry.

One final issue, the main character of Edward Cullen is played by Robert Pattinson. Edward is supposed to 17 in the story, however he was born in 1901. He died as a human in 1918 and has lived as a 17 year-old vampire since. Robert Pattinson, however, was born May 13, 1986, making him 22. At the minute, he can get away portraying a 17 year old. Do you remember this issue whenever the Harry Potter movies were being made? Would the actors age faster than the characters due to the time it takes to make a movie. This was an issue with characters who actually aged, it's even more of a task with a vampire who stays 17 forever. There are currently four books in the Twilight series. Presuming they all get made into movies, Robert Pattinson could potentially be into his 30s by the time the fourth one is released. Of course, this is presuming that they don't rush these movies, which is quite a high possibility. Considering the Twilight movie seems rushed (according to some reviews), it is likely this would be the case of the rest of them. It's a simple money-making machine.

So, if you hadn't guessed, I won't be handing my money over to the clerk in the cinema for a ticket to see Twilight. Maybe I'm being petty, maybe I'm being practical as a student whose student loan is getting tight as it is nearly the end of the first semester.

By the way, I've heard great things from the Swedish movie "Let the Right One In", however have yet to see it. It is also a story about teenage vampire romance, however, this is apparently very good. It currently sits snug toward the bottom of IMDb's Top 250 list, above Rocky and In Bruges (which I consider one of the best movies of this year), and just below Network, one of my favourite movies ever.

So, if you want my advice. Save your £10 from going to the cinema and go out and buy a good book by a good author, or a few good, classic movies.

By the way, if you want my advice for good authors...

Haruki Murakami. That's all that needs to be said.

Oh and definitely Network in regards to movies. Watch Network. It's relevance grows exponentially each day.

Well, that's it for today kids.

Eat your milk and drink your vitamins.