Russell Brand & Katy Perry Split.

  So, Russell Brand & Katy Perry have filed for divorce, you already know this of course; it's news, apparently. Does I care? No... no. not at all.
 But my apathy doesn't derive from spite, in fact I hope their divorce goes smoothly and they both end up happy in the future (preferably with different professions)

  "They never last these celebrity marriages" That's the general response, after a quick glance at Facebook and Twitter, even Huffington Post are marching in the celebrity marriage witch-hunt posting this question on their Facebook wall
But, with 40% of marriages worldwide ending in devoice, with 45% of British marriages and 50% of US marriages ending likewise, is it really fair to pick on celebrities for their poor success record?
 Also, given those numbers, do those of you who lavishly boasted your prediction of Perry and Brand's separation still seem as impressive to you?

 For your consideration; there are lots of successful celebrity marriages, need proof? Look at all four of the Beatles, four of the most famous men to ever grace our planet who all managed to find and stay loyal to their much sought 'one'.
 Yes,  John divorced early in his life, and Paul did later in his. But John and Yoko and Paul and Linda are some of the most sincere unions one's cognizant of.

 So 2011 is drawing to an end, and seen some pretty big devoices; Katie Price & Peter Andre, Katy Perry &  Russell Brand and Kim Kardashian & Whoever  it was that she married.
 This is my conclusion; their's nothing wrong with celebrities' marriages, it's that the people today who we consider to be celebrities, are actually just fame hungry media whores who marry to get their face in the paper, and divorce to get their face in the paper.
 So when Paris Hilton's next 10 day marriage ends and you wonder what went wrong, it was you, for paying any attention in the first place.                
 

Art and X-Factor

  For the first time in a good few years, I watched a full episode of X-Factor tonight. Not entirely by choice, and it was from behind a book. I almost did this a few weeks previous during the audition stage, but I couldn't make the full episode, because the unmerciful cackling of the audience and  multi-millionaire judges at the faces of the helplessly deluded contestants who are pushed on to stage by produces with no morals made my stomach turn. And the watchers at home who laugh a long are no better by my code.

 Tonight's episode - although not as bad - didn't do much at change the direction of the breeze in which my respect of humanity is blowing. The premise of the show wasn't hard to pick up, one by one fame-hungry talentless cunts preform already shit songs to a panel of  four of the most gormless shits I've ever seen. Including Gary Barlow who is basically the plot to Speed 3 where terrorists have planted a bomb in his larynx, which will explode if he talks in more than one tone. And also Louis Walsh who constantly has a glassed expression on this face, like an off-camera runner is holding up a que-card with a picture of a giant cock. As well as two other judges that are too boring to even lampoon. 

Before each of the dreadful display is a short VT where all they go on about how all their life they've wanted to be famous and self-congratulate themselves on how supposedly charismatic they are before they almost drown in their own tears about some uncle they ever met who dies years ago, an are going to capitalize their whole career on said relatives death. 

  Tonight's episodes was based around songs about heartbreak (how fuckin' deep). The problem with this, is that most of the people on the show are about 19 or 20 so couldn't put any soul into it - and before some dumb bitch  tells me that age doesn't mean anything; just because your boyfriend with a car dumped you when you were thirteen for someone his own age, doesn't mean that your life's over, so shut the fuck up. And why do they have to sing cover songs anyway? Why can't they they sing their own? Is it to much to ask for that they have, you know, a little talent? If that was the case, we wouldn't now have Olly Murs churning out shit like "Ooh, she let me sleep with her, I figured her figure's a sure sure winner,Plus, I've got to leave from the back I'm a skipper,You make my heart skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip a beat." Yep, fuckin' poetry that mate. Simon and Garfunkel would be jealous. With this, and the added bonus of non of them being able to play instruments, the judges still have the audacity to call the artists. REWIND!. How are they artists? They can't write, they can't play, some of them can barley sing. Where does art come into it? Bob Dylan, he's an artist. Jimi Hendricks, he's an artists. John Lennon. Jim Morrison. But on X-Factor, they wouldn't even get past the auditions, because they don't have, by conventional standards,  they don't have great voices, which on X-factor is not only the most important, but the only important element. Aren't you glad X-Factor wasn't around in the '60s? 

  So here's my final message; this goes out to anyone who's thinking about applying for next years show. If you can sing, and want to sing, but can't write or play; this in't the business for you. Act in musicals, or on Cruse ships. we already have enough singers, what we need is artists. And even if you can, great, but still don't apply, keep your dignoty.  

R.I.P Steve Jobs

 You've almost certainly already heard, but in case you haven't, tonight Steve Jobs CEO of Apple lost his fight with cancer, and died at the age of 56.
 Now I know some of you don't care, that's fine. But anyone who has ever made anything creative on a Mac, will agree with me here when I say that the power, speed and simplicity of these inspiring machines, washes away any frustration and worry, and allows for your creative side to flourish. Everything I've ever created that I could say I'm proud of, was created on a Mac. And for that Steve, I thank you. And for that, I will remember you. R.I.P.

                                       R.I.P STEVE JOBS (1955 - 2011)

Leave Richard Dawkins alone!

 Professor Richard Dawkins was on Newsnight this Tuesday night. I'll admit now that I have, and still haven't watched it, but this isn't really about his Newsnight appearance.
 Because of this, Dawkins became trending topic on twitter, as a long time admirer of Dawkins -as a writer, a scientist and an atheist - I was personally insulted at some of the misinformed, and sometimes just dumb criticisms. Some where Atheist saying they where embarrassed to have him as their spokesperson -I don't know what the basis is for this. But a word I kept see recurring in most tweets was 'preacher'... well yeah, I guess he is a bit of a preacher, but he's a scientist, and you know what preaching science is called? ... Education!

  Another one that got me rattled was calling him 'Unscientific.' At first I struggled to understand this one. But what I soon found out that this was because /apparently/ it's unscientific to believe that there's no God[s], and that to be scientific you should mark it as 50/50. This isn't scientific. it isn't even mathematical. The scientific method would be to calculate a decision based on the evidence, and, to be brutishly honest, the evidence against God[s] profoundly outweighs the pros. What would be wrong, would be to completely abrogate the existence of God[s]. (although I do this on a daily basis) But Dawkins doesn't say  this, he's said countless times that there is a possibility, though it be one he puts at 00.01%.

  That's pretty much all I had to say, it's not a long post. All the other tweets I saw where mostly rightful admiration. The only other thing I saw that bothered me was one about him being sexist - which I have no idea what he's talking about. Maybe he means a different Richard Dawkins, or maybe he's just stupid - I think this is the most likely, if judging only by his spelling.
 So please, leave Richard Dawkins  alone, or if you feel the need, at least read one of his books, *before* you impugn him.                   

           

God: The ony male member of the Girl Guides.

   I keep having to reminding myself that this story doesn't come from the US, but in fact my own, vastly more secular country, the UK.
   It also comes from a source that I wouldn't usually associate with religious (or non-religious)  prejudice - The Girlgiding UK.
  To those of you from across the Atlantic, the Girl Guides (or the Brownies)  are the British equivalent of your Girl Scouts - this story probably won't seem that overly shocking to you either, as this kind of thing happens in your country all the time, like in the US Scouts, that don't allow gays, despite having a rainbow in their logo.  

  Maddie Willett, is a normal seven year old girl. She has two normal, law-abiding, loving parents who have nothing dishonest that can be said about them... accept one thing... they're atheists.
  Maddie has spent 6 months at Brownies, and wants to continue. But too stay in brownies, she must first take the following pledge:

"I promise I will do my best, to love my God, and serve the Queen and the country, to help other people and to keep the brownie guide law" 

 The atheist parents of Maddie Willett, thought it wrong for their daughter to have to say that she loves God, and that if they would allow her not to take the oath, or, to simply replace the word God for something else, say 'Life' or 'The Universe'. That's not a big deal I think, and it's not like they're asking to completely change the oath, it's just for their daughter, and possibly for other children of non-religious families. I also don't see what the problem in doing this would be. Would changing one word for one girl send the whole girl guides into anarchy? I don't think It would.

Mrs Willett gave this statement:

"We don't have belief in God, and our Daughter is yet to make a decision, it's a big decision for her to make and It would be offensive for an atheist to say they love God."    

   But anyway, the guides said that this would be ridiculous, and the Oath was to stay the same and if Maddie didn't say it, then there would be no other option but to ban her from the group.                                          

  But what do you think? Is this just a petty word - she can say she loves God, but it doesn't mean she has to mean it.
  Or do you agree with the parents?  That a child, shouldn't have to declare love for something she doesn't even know if she believes in yet.
 Or perhaps... you agree with me.
That the word should be changed, but not just for young Maddie, but entirely! The Girl Guides is a great place for young girls for them to learn teamwork, knitting or whatever the hell they do, but religion should have nothing to do with it.
  Whether you believe in God or not, should be a choice you make by yourself, when you're old enough to do so and it shouldn't be forced on you while you're at school, or when you're at Brownies.
  You may have noticed that I nether used the phrase 'Christian Child' or 'Atheist Child' in this post, that's because It makes my blood boil, when I see young children being actively forced into or even being associated with religion. ( And if you're wondering, yes, that is why I didn't come to your son's christening.)

Capital Dumbishment.

   You've probably already heard, it's been trending on twitter all day,  but there's talk of MPs taking a vote on the place of Capital Punishment in the UK. They're doing this because, apparently, a majority of the nation want to see Capital Punishment reinstated. Well, a majority of the nation also vote on reality TV shows and pray to an invisible cloud wizard, So I don't think they're fit for making any kind of decisions. Unless that decision is whether Candeice has a better tits than April.

  For moral guidance on Capital punishment  I decided to look in the Book. No, The Bible, better.; The Lord of the Rings.
 There's a brilliant bit in Book 1, where Gandalf is telling Frodo how he and Aragorn caught and interrogated Gollum, before setting him free. Frodo is angry at this and tells Gandalf that he should have killed Gollum while he had the chance. The following is my favorite line from the Lord of the Rings. And pretty much somes up my entire views on the death penalty

" Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise can not see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum  can be cured  before he dies. But there is a chance of it. " 

                                                           ___

  To me, Capital Punishment is not a question of whether criminals deserve death or not. But it's a question of whether the rest of us have the right to give it to them. And as far as I'm concerned, we don't.
 I think it goes back to the macho-conservatism that I talked about in my first blog post, when deluded people seem to insist that it's justice  'AN EYE FOR AN EYE" they'll scream. I'm surprised this is such a commonly chanted mantra, when decades ago Gandhi completely ruined it by ingeniously adding  '... will make the whole world blind' to the end.

 It also needs pointing out that Capital Punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. There are no results that show that crime goes down when it's instated, and no results to show it goes up when it's taken away. If somebody really wants to commit a crime they will, whatever the the punishment, because, believe it or not; they usually plan around getting caught.

 Capital Punishment doesn't prevent crime, it just pushes it under the carpet. If you really want to permanently reduce the rates of crime in the UK, first do something about the 13 million living in poverty. It's not a little know fact that their is higher crime in poorer areas. Reduce poverty, you reduce crime. And instead of dehumanising the already prisoners, you educate them to be, so when they go back into the outside world, they can get a job, instead of having to revert back to crime. 




   

Jeremy Clarkson for Prime Minister?

Sometimes I feel the anguish that this world gives me, slowly start to fade away. But that constant torture has become like a drug, and I need to feel angry, in order to not feel ill and lost. Luckily, living in the Internet age, it's pretty easy to get my fix. All I need to do is go on facebook or Huffington Post, and minutes later I'll be ripping feather pillows apart with my teeth.

Today, I woke up with a smile, so I new something was wrong with me. I got onto facebook. I knew I needed something to really get me going. I thought for a minute... who do I hate? Glenn Beck? No, I used him last week. ShockofGod? No, that's more just pity. Then I thorght of the perfect person... Jeremy Clarkson! I facebook searched his name. I don't know if you've ever facebook searched Jeremy Clarkson, but this is what you find:

            
That's not all of them. I counted 46 before I got bored and gave up.

Maybe some of my foreign readers are unfamiliar with Jeremy Clarkson. (how I envy you) So let me explain; Jeremy Clarkson, or Jezza, as twats call him. Is a 51 year old man, with the intellect of a 14 year old standing outside an immigrant run newsagents, telling the owner through the window to go back to a country he doesn't come from. He's one of three presenters on a BBC show called Top Gear. The premise of the show is Jeremy Clarkson driving around in fast cars, telling people what he doesn't like about about races, genders and religions. A typical line from the show would be something like "I'm in a ferrari something-something-something, it's the fastest car in the world! Unlike Mexicans who a lazy, and sleep a lot!"

I used to enjoy Top Gear, until I reached about 15 (coincidentally the collective IQ of all three Top Gear presenters.) That was when Top Gear's politicly-incorrect rhetoric stopped being funny to me, and just started to seem repetitive and pathetic. If Top Gear excels in one thing though - and you have to give it credit for it - Top Gear is brilliant at hiding how conceived it is. The way Clarkson, May, and Hammond deliver their jokes, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're improvised. But you'd be wrong! In fact the three of them sit in a room months before scripting it all. I've always imaged to be something like this: 

                                                           Jezza: 

Do you know what would be a funny Top Gear joke? If I was to say 'women can't

drive' HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                                                         Hamster: 

Ha-ha-ha Yeah Jeremy ha-ha-ha that would be funny ha-ha-ha.

                         Long haired boring one who wears the cardigans:

Yeah, and then maybe I can say something like 'is that because they're too busy in the kitchen?' 

                                                          Jezza: 

Yes, that's exactly what you should say. Because that's exactly what we do on Top Gear, we satirise political correctness. And even if any stupid women get offended and complain to the Guardian, it's ok. because, we have herds of mindless viewers, to utter the Top Gear Mantra: It's only a joke!      

Astrology and Religion.

    Astrology, is a concept, invented centuries ago by our ancestors who were still ignorant in their understandings of the cosmos. 
 With the objective of trying to put some false sense of order into a universe rampant with chaos, and to comfort people, by leading them to believe they have a privileged position in the word. Astrology offers vague and inconclusive predictions. And those predictions, will surely be different depending on whose you follow. 
   
  Astrology appears all across history, all across the planet, but the imagery, and stories are different throughout. The beliefs of the Ancient Babylonians are different to the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians. The beliefs of the Native Americans are different to the ones of the Celts, who lived in Britain. And all them different to what's believed today.  There is no global consensus on astrology. What you believe, is based, not on facts or evidence, but on what country you were born in, and/or what you were told as a child.     

 Astrology goes against every thing we've learned , through science, yet millions of people chose to still believe in it. People force themselves dismiss truths, because lies smell sweeter. And based on their mistrusted faith, in these fabricated lies. People make wrong choices, and pass up great opportunities. 

Knowing this, any sensible person.  Would probably arrive at the conclusion that astrology is bullshit, and even a possible danger to the race. 
Now, read this again... but change 'Astrology' with 'Religion'     
                   

DON'T KILL HITLER!

are we too right-wing for time travel? 

 
Despite what a majority of you probably thought when you saw the title - especially those who know me well - this is not a post about the approaching September episode of Doctor Who entitled 'Let's Kill Hitler'. Nor is it an open letter to Quentin Tarantino, telling him... well I won't spoil the end of Inglorious Bastards for those who haven't seen it (although I've clearly already given it away.)  It is, actually, a blog about why you shouldn't kill Hitler....
 
There are a lot of people in this world who have no imagination. Regrettably, most of these creatively inept people have formspring accounts. So quite frequently, the same same, unimaginative, uninteresting questions appear in your inbox. Examples being: 'what's your favourite band?', 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?', 'U R GAY!' But there's one question that keeps coming up, and it's not the question that bothers me, so much have how so many people choose to answer it. The question is 'If you could go back in time, where would you go, and what would you do?'... Now, there's nothing wrong with this question, but 90% of time, I see it being answerd with 'I'd kill Hitler' 

Now, don't take this the wrong way, I hate Hitler too.I'm no Hitler fan. And I, like most, wish that Hitler had never been born .Or had never got it to power. However I do strongly believe that killing Hitler, by means of time travel, would be a bad idea. Now I can see where, at this point you might disagree with me. You might think that,by killing Hitler, you'd save the lives of ten million people murderd in the holocaust, and all the soldiers -on both sides- who lost their lives. Well, you'd be right. But that's not the point. Imagine a young couple in love, living in 1930s Britain. But before long the boy gets called to war, were he's eventually shot to death in occupied France. The girl grieves, for a while, and then moves on and starts a family with someone else. Now if you were to kill Hitler, she would have stayed with boy one, who would have never went to war, and they'd have lived happily ever after. The romantics may fail to see what I'm getting at here, but if she hadn't have met boy 2 , she never would have had that family. In your return to 2011 you'd find that the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for the girl, would have never been. Now imagine this a thousand times over. You may return to the present day to find that your friend, wife, husband, boss or fiancée. No longer exist. As well, all the great films, paintings, literature and poems derived from the war, have all also vanished. Culture will be completely different, relationships with other nations will be weaker, no Winston Churchills or George Pattons to be idolised and Anti-Semitism maybe still running strong in the national consensus.   


This is what worries me about time travel , not all the complicated paradoxes about killing your granddad or sleeping with your mother. But man's inability to think past his macho-conservative attitude, and use time travel as a way to go back and kill everyone he disagrees with. It's not just benevolent dictators that are in danger either. What's to stop the Pope from going back in time and killing Mohamed and L. Ron Hubbard and every other prophet, making Christianity the only religion on the planet?


As much as I would love to experience time travel in our lifetime, I'm quite glad it's far beyond our reach. Hopefully, one day, when our race is far far past it's killing people phase, then we can have time travel. When it'll be used only for learning and recreation, and not as a weapon.