22 December 2009

Old = Bad?



It seems that anything that is not current and up to date is viewed as somehow inferior to the latest version of whatever the thing is. The consumer culture is probably responsible for this, and while being a good thing for our economy, it's a bad state of mind for the public to be in.

Cars are a fine example of this. Modern, current range cars are deemed superior to older ones simply due to their age, when in reality, there are plenty of terrible cars made today (there always have been, actually) and there are still plenty of good, old cars that far superior to some current range ones.

The same goes for clothes. I can see the attraction in fitting in with the crowd, being inconspicuous - but what if it means sticking with the current dress sense, which could make you look ridiculous? I just can't see the point in this. Stick with a fashion that you enjoy and that suits your purposes - i.e keeping you warm and keeping certain areas of you private.

I'd much rather stick to a design that I'm sure works rather than change everything I own every month in order to blend in. I'll drive a good car, regardless of its age and I'll wear clothes I like to wear, regardless of whether they are up to date or not.

Too many people just drift along with everybody else and lack the courage just to be themselves. This isn't a good thing at all. If people stuck to what they enjoyed and what they were good at, mankind may have achieved a lot more than it currently has done.

We need more pioneers, not sheep.

Certainly, in the technological spectrum, older equipment is usually inferior in its functions and practicality to newer equipment. Due to the fact that we live in the age of technology, this rule is also applied to everything. Cars, clothes, fashions - even people, to an extent.

Things used to be made to last, not to be replaced with a newer technology or newer style every month. Functionality has been replaced by style, and I can't see this changing any time soon.

This begs the question: do we still think about what we're doing and buying? I'd like to be able to say yes, but when everybody seems to automatically buy the latest thing, simply because it is new, I don't think I can.

I pride myself in the fact that my mobile phone is 4 years old, and has never been replaced since. This is for the simple reason that it still works as well as it did the day I bought it. The camera doesn't matter, because it's a phone - I have a proper camera for taking pictures.

All that matters about my phone is that it is usable for its basic function - to take and receive calls and text messages. I probably won't be replacing it any time soon, and I urge you to adopt the same attitude - after all, what happened to the common sense of replacing something when it broke?

All the shit that they're putting on phones now you simply don't need, and there is no point in paying £200 for a phone when you already have one, even if it does mean you get the latest 'app' or phone technology that you'd never actually need.

It's a waste of money.


19 December 2009

Winter Driving



You'd think that after having around 90 previous years of snow and cars in this country, people would know how to drive when it gets a bit chilly. Yet, strangely - they don't.

To give them credit, some people do prepare their cars for winter and fit winter tyres and top up oil levels etc. but the vast majority of us do nothing. Is it any wonder such chaos is caused when the roads are covered with snow and ice?

I think this is partly down to the attitude that most people have towards cars. Motoring used to be a thing of pleasure; a thing that only people who enjoyed driving would take part in. But ever since cars became the #1 method of transport in the known world, the joy has diminished and people simply see them as very small trains.

If people on the whole were more interested in driving and their own cars, I think the problem of winter driving would not be nearly as severe as it is now. Most people are hopeless drivers in the snow, who get stuck and require rescuing.

If only they had prepared their cars for the winter and knew how to drive in the snow, they would be much better off as a result.

You don't even need a 4x4 to drive safely on a snowy road. Experience and knowledge is the key. It's incredibly frustrating that the same thing happens every year: complete hopelessness in the face of extreme weather. It's a wonder that the country still runs itself when it snows.

It also makes no sense whatsoever that there is nothing in the driving test that prepares people for a time of the year that will happen - every year - when driving conditions become very challenging.

So here's what I propose: on every driving test and in one lesson, there will be a section involving snow/ice road driving. Little test roads should be built that can be artificially frozen and snowed on. It makes total sense.

As a result, if it was a section of the driving test, the whole country would be much safer in winter and hopefully people would be aware of the risks of winter driving. They might even prepare every winter for these conditions.

It's a mystery that such an obvious solution hasn't been implemented yet.


6 December 2009

The NHS


The other day while out and about, I managed to inflict a head wound upon myself. It was pretty deep and bleeding quite a lot, so after a bit of persuasion by my friends we went back into school and got it checked out by some clerks.

What followed was a series of conversations between me, my dad (over the phone) and the clerks at reception, and in the end I was sent to the unofficial sixth form common room to wait until I could be taken to the minor injuries place. I didn't particularly care at this point, I'd never made much of a fuss over injuries, but a senior staffer saw me and due to the fact that Ofsted were in that day, wanted me out of there. Yeah, it would have looked a bit bad if students were walking around with gaping head wounds, I understand.

So one of the clerks drove me to the minor injuries centre run by the NHS in the local town. We entered the waiting room, I gave the receptionist my details (strangely my religion was asked, to which I replied 'atheist' which was received very strangely: everyone seemed very shocked) and we sat down. I was promised that we would be moved to the top of the waiting list, but in the end I had to wait two and a half hours to be patched up. Yeah, with a bleeding head. So much for being a priority.

So you'd expect me to be critical of the NHS after this little episode. But I'm not. I think it's great that medical treatment is free in this country. Now, it's a bit different for me because a lot of people would have made a lot more fuss if they were in my situation with a bleeding head wound, but to me it is just a trivial matter.

All in all, I'd stupidly injured myself and been fixed for free. That's all that counts really, as long as the competence of the NHS staff doesn't interfere with the way the wound heals, and it didn't, so there is no reason to complain. Yes, the NHS needs to improve, it is certainly not without its faults, but I much prefer this system to one where I would have to pay every time I injured myself.

When you examine the situation in this country, the distribution of tax money, it really makes you wonder. We have millions of pounds being given to people who are simply too lazy to work or are exploiting the benefits system by becoming pregnant at an early age. This money would be better spent if it was directed to the National Health Service, it's as simple as that. They are under-staffed and underpaid, and they simply need more money which the government is busy handing out to those who simply do not need it.

Overall though, the NHS is doing fine. Exceptionally well for a free organisation. So my message is this; do not be so quick to criticise an institution that is neglected by the government and is free of charge to the masses; they're doing a bloody good job.


29 November 2009

You're such a queer


Here's a realisation. One that I've come to after 5 and a bit years of going to a C of E comprehensive school in north Kent. Homophobia is commonly used in insults and is deemed nowhere near as offensive as a remark that is 'racist'. The same goes for other prejudiced insults. I wonder why this is.

Certainly, there are more people in the school from ethnic minorities than people who are gay, so this may have an effect.

What makes the whole situation even worse though is the fact that this school is a Church of England school. They're supposed to be peaceful and loving and endorse pretty much everything, yet there appears to be more prejudice there than at any other school I've visited. It's rather ironic really.

I think mainly, insulting someone with a homophobic remark isn't a clear sign of prejudice, more an attempt to degrade the victim because gay people are commonly more feminine than heterosexual men. However, there is still a lot of prejudice around - there probably always will be - and I think it is unfair that certain forms of it are treated far more seriously than others.

Sure, there is a history of racism and slavery worldwide, but if we are trying to achieve equality here, all prejudiced remarks need to be treated with the same attitude.

Eventually, I would like to see any insult - whether it is based on physical appearance, mental state or lifestyle choice - treated exactly the same. With light heartedness. Slowly, we are banishing viewpoints that see other people are inferior to the majority, and eventually I think there will be very little prejudice, but it would be great if the whole thing was taken a little less seriously.

For example, if somebody with a particular hair colour is insulted based on that particular trait, not much fuss is kicked up, but if somebody is insulted based upon their race or ethnicity a huge fuss is kicked up. But there's no difference. It's an insult based on appearance, that's all.

There are regular stories of primary school children being supposedly racist because they insult people in their classes who are from a different race than the majority in the class are - but they're not racist. They're simply acting as humans do. They exclude the one who is different, that they do not understand. There's nothing deeper than that, it's simply physical difference, the same as hair colour, eye colour, foot size, whatever.

So to conclude then, I think that we should treat all prejudiced remarks the same now - seriously - to banish prejudiced viewpoints, then we should work to ensure that insults are all just taken light heartedly. I don't see why it's such a big shock to people who immigrate here that they meet prejudiced remarks - it would be the same anywhere. As long as we all stay human, we will always be insulting each other, using character traits in these insults, so we should attempt to treat them less seriously and attempt to treat all insults, based on anything, the same way.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.


22 November 2009

Health and Safety


Ever since health and safety has become a business opportunity, it's become progressively more over the top. Regulations have become so strict in some cases that you are no longer allowed to replace the tank on a water cooler, instead you must wait until somebody who has been taught how to lift a water tank safely arrives and does it for you, because if they didn't, you would definitely break your spine if you tried to lift the tank.

Who are these people taught by? The all powerful master of water cooler tanks?

With all these regulations in place, it's a wonder that accidents still happen. Every few years rivers in the UK break their banks and flood entire areas and cause huge amounts of damage. Where were the health and safety checks for areas with a flood risk? The inspectors were probably looking around tower blocks in London winging about hazard assessment and faulty supply cables while their wives are in bed with postmen.

So, when health and safety checks are required and are perfectly reasonable, no attention is paid, and as a result of this, much more severe accidents happen than the ones which are being prevented constantly by teams of health-Nazis who get in the way of busy people while they are at work.

Nobody cares about petty injuries apart from the health and safety squad; if something breaks and a minor injury is caused, nobody usually minds. But if their house is flooded by several thousand tonnes of water and waste, usually they care.

Attention needs to be paid where attention is required, not where the most amount of money is offered. Preventing towns being flooded is more important than ensuring Percy doesn't staple his tongue to the printer again. So here's a message to any health and safety enforcers out there: pull your finger out and do your work where it's bloody required.


18 November 2009

Idiots


We see them daily. People who think poking bears is a good idea and whose IQ is usually about equal to their shoe size. Our whole civilization is plagued by them, and unfortunately they're a majority.

It's no small wonder accidents are so prevalent, or crime rates so high, when the majority of people do not want to fill in gaps in their knowledge and banish their ignorance. The problem is, nobody cares one bit. Especially in their teenage years.

Despite the fact that people who are in a position of power are usually intelligent people, there is not much that can be done to prevent accidents caused by incredible stupidity and general lack of care that does not impinge upon your average halfwit's human rights.

But, if every bit of common sense points to a solution of, say, not allowing people under a certain intelligence threshold to drive, why not implement such a solution? Yes, it's all well and good and very liberal to say that everyone should be allowed to do what they want within reason in the country they are a long standing resident in, but this is the only opposition that holds any ground.

I think it seems silly to ensure that more accidents and fights and 'bad shit' happens simply because these fools happen to belong to the same species as us by allowing them to make important decisions. Intellectually, there are many people who are vastly inferior to many of us, and yet they are allowed to make highly intellectual decisions that are beyond their comprehension. Yes, that is a reference to politics. Politics comes into this too.

In such an intellectual and deeply important environment, somebody who believes that there is no evidence for evolution and that setting other people's pets alight is fun and clever has the same amount of influence in politics as a university graduate. I hope this makes as little sense to you as it does to me.

Unfortunately intelligence is difficult to define, so there is no fair test that could be implemented before somebody makes an important decision that would accurately measure how intellectually capable they are. IQ tests vary greatly and have little effect on driving, for example.

So what do we do? Well, we can't do anything. We all have to grit out teeth and resign ourselves to the fact that the majority of the world's population of humans are foolish, moronic, cold-lamppost-licking, tabloid reading, infuriating idiots.


11 November 2009

The Monarchy


For centuries the monarchy of the UK had absolute political power and its existence today is viewed by a lot of people as pointless.

I think that governments should run countries and make important decisions based upon what the public want, so I'm naturally against the idea of an undemocratic system.

However I don't think there is any need to remove the monarchy at the moment. Yes, it still has some power, like giving the final say when laws are going through the process of being passed, but it doesn't really have any real power. I think it should be stripped of its political power but there is no reason to remove the monarchy.

I see it more as a symbol of prestige for our country. All the important decisions are made rightly so by our elected government, so there is no real reason to hate the monarchy and to destroy it somehow.

Prince Charles uses the money at his disposal to fund his charity, The Prince's Trust, which has very commendable aims and is a good use of the fortune that the monarchy possesses. The Royal Family don't really get up to much anyway, so you cannot strip them of power that they do not have.

As I've said before, I don't think a wealthy group of unelected individuals should run a country but they cannot be completely destroyed, they are an important part of England and the UK's history, as well as other countries'. The monarchy is still a great symbol of power and prosperity that our country possesses, so why destroy a symbol of success?

If the monarchy was still governing this country, I'd be angry, but as they're not I don't see why some people do get angry about their existence. I say leave the monarchy as it is, it's a nice display of the wealth that this country possesses and it seems to have good intentions these days, so there is no reason to destroy a national symbol.


10 November 2009

Freedom of Speech


Personally I think the notion of restricting free speech is ridiculous and insulting. Yes, there are logical reasons that support limiting it, but it's just such a basic and simple right that we have here that is being limited, and I don't like that one bit.

The main reason people argue for limiting free speech is that because words are very powerful, one person can start a riot simply by shouting controversial words or sentences in highly populated areas. This is true, but I seriously doubt that most people even know that saying certain things is illegal, so why bother to invent a law restricting what we say?

As I'm quite liberal, I also dislike the fact that there is a large body of people telling me what I can and cannot say. It's almost like bullying someone into saying only what that group of people wants people to say. I don't take any notice of these laws, and I doubt it will result in me being arrested but it's a ridiculous concept, limiting what we can and cannot say.

As Martin Luther King said

"In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Obviously he used this in a different context, but it can still be applied here too.

Usually actions are illegal. In this case it is speech itself that is being made illegal (well, in some cases) and speech is not an action in the same sense that physical actions are actions. People choose how they react to things, and speech is something that a person has a wide range of choices to choose from when reacting to it, unlike for example being attacked, where you only have two options, fight or flight.

Surely then the government isn't going to let a minority of people who cannot think for themselves and choose to react idiotically to things that they hear and disagree with be responsible for the limitation of every other citizen's free speech in the country? But apparently so. Our government has definitely started to give minority groups good treatment, it could even be argued preferential treatment. But what about the masses? What do we do?

It has gotten to the point now where we cannot even express ourselves using speech without that being limited. We can no longer say whatever we please. That really is quite depressing for those of us of a liberal persuasion. It is a blatant affront to arguably the most important human right we possess: freedom of expression. And where would we be without it? There would have been no revolutions, no banning of slavery, nobody would have confronted injustice. I believe it is imperative that this right of ours is never limited in any way.

I hope this changes, but in the mean time I will continue to say whatever I damn well please regardless of whether some idiot in London wants me to say it or not. Thanks for reading.


7 November 2009

Controversial Political Parties - removing them from politics?


There are those who believe that parties like the BNP or others that hold controversial views and policies should not be allowed to exist in parliament. I disagree. Although not a BNP supporter myself, you cannot remove somebody's right to run for election and express their views simply because they differ from the majority of the population's views. There is no right or wrong if something is simply an opinion.

If a party holds highly disagreeable policies, it is most likely that it will not be voted into office if its views are not supported by the majority of the population. It is all a matter of opinion, and we seem to be very good at creating words to brand people with that disagree with the 'basic' views that most of us express.

For example, we have racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists to name but a few. Very soon it seems we may even have 'thought criminals' the way things are going (yes that is a 1984 ref.).

People also seem incredibly eager to protest about anything that is even slightly controversial. Personally I think it's a waste of time - protesters are rarely listened to and even when they are it is only if there are incredibly large groups of them causing a lot of trouble. People seem so eager to protest that they cannot see that what they are fighting for is exactly what they are fighting against.

For example, it is widely feared that if the BNP were to gain office in the UK, many basic human rights would be removed from people (as there is no way of knowing this, it is a matter of opinion as I said earlier). The leader of this party was due to appear on TV on a political Q&A session and there were thousands of protesters that were attempting to remove his right to free speech and right to run for office because what he is rumoured to believe differs from what they believe and could well remove some of the human rights of many people if he ever gained office.

However, by attempting to remove his right to free speech they are simply doing the same thing that he is rumoured to attempt if he becomes PM: remove human rights. People do not think enough about the effects of their actions before they act. They simply see something they disagree with and march into London letting everyone else know that they disagree with it.

Politics has always been and should continue to be a matter of opinion and no party should be disallowed to run for office simply because their views are disliked by others. It's as simple as that. I think that if a party's policies are confirmed to strip people of their human rights, they should not be allowed to run for office. This is because it has gone beyond opinion and begun to impinge upon basic, established human rights. However if it is just a controversial viewpoint, it is down to opinion again and should not decide the fate of a political party.

If there ever was a prime minister or president or national leader who attempted to strip people of their human rights, there would probably be a body of people with the authority at their disposal to overthrow him/her and remove them from office, so there isn't much to worry about. Also, new laws undergo a vast and extremely complicated new process before being passed, and I doubt that any law that impinged upon our human rights would make it through this process.

To summarise then, I believe that anyone, no matter what their views are, should be allowed to run for office, but if their viewpoints conflict with basic human rights then they should be denied office. If their viewpoints are ambiguous, they should be watched over closely if they ever gain power and if they ever attempt to limit or remove the population's human rights, they should be overthrown and an immediate election should be held.


5 November 2009

Why am I an atheist?


I've always been a sceptic, and when it comes to religion and the concept of a 'god' I'm no different. Put simply, I believe in what I can see, touch and what seems most likely to be real.

Most of the arguments that are made do not prove that the deity people are attempting to prove the existence of is the deity that their particular faith describes. Most religions seem to have the same basic beliefs: there was a god or deity who created the world and the universe, there was a human prophet, there were some rules laid down and a holy book.

It seems that a lot of people turn to religion because they cannot possibly understand the big bang theory because the human mind is not capable of understanding the concept of 'forever'. And I can sympathise with that because no human can. It's beyond our mental capability to understand it. But that doesn't mean that everyone should immediately conjure up the idea of a deity that somehow created everything and in such a way that is beyond our understanding - simply because thinking is hard.

The big bang theory and atheism appear to be the most rational beliefs out there. Sure, nobody can understand the big bang theory, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than a magic being creating everything in an amount of time so short that it is scientifically impossible. There is also proof that suggests that the big bang theory is correct. No proof of a god.

I suppose another reason I chose atheism is because I like to question everything. I don't like blindly believing in something and living my life the way that a few scholars wanted people to several thousand years ago. I like to be the master of my own destiny and I'll live my life however I damn well want to.

I also believe that it's nonsensical to attempt to explain a complex universe with a complex being. How is one any different to the other? The universe is so complex that we cannot understand its origins, and attempting to explain this with another complex thing that we cannot understand that is based entirely on blind self-belief in an invisible and unreachable deity makes no sense. It's just like going round in circles..

Also, the world is an unfortunate place to live for the majority of its population, and inventing the idea of an omnipresent and benevolent deity that watches over everyone and looks out for them is a comforting image. But why is it so hard to accept the brutal reality of the world that we live in? It's like putting your hands over your ears and saying 'lalalalalalala everything's great'.

So, these are a few of the reasons why I prefer atheism over blind belief. Other concepts just have too many faults for me, atheism actually makes sense. It just seems as if religions were created to attempt to explain the gaps in our knowledge and understanding that we had two thousand years ago, but we've moved on now. We know a lot more, and there is no purpose for religion any more.

However, the main reason I'm an atheist is because there is no evidence of a deity whatsoever. Every bit of 'evidence' that mankind has attempted to provide has been fabricated and produced by humans. Give me evidence of a deity, I'll be a theist. In the meantime I'm an atheist because I'm choosing to accept what is most probably reality.


1 November 2009

The legalisation of drugs


My first reaction to this is to legalise drugs that are currently outlawed. This is probably because I believe that anyone should be allowed by their government to do whatever they damn well want with their body. But thinking this through further, it's much more complicated than that.

There is the argument that drugs are no different to alcohol in the effects they have. You consume them, you go into an unstable mental state and you are much more likely to break laws. So you can see why governments want to keep them non-legal. However if this is the case, why not outlaw alcohol? It has the same effects but is a much larger problem because most people consume alcohol. Personally I'm not in favour of outlawing alcohol, but there is certainly flawed logic here.

When abused, drugs can have far more severe effects on the individual than alcohol can. It can destroy families more easily and it can seriously harm their mental state. One argument is that if drugs were made legal, the crimes people would be more likely to commit under the influence of drugs would still be illegal and therefore it would only be something very similar in its effects as alcohol that the government would be legalising. That makes sense.

However the main reason I am against the legalisation of drugs is that it would almost certainly increase crime. Yes, there have been studies and experiments in countries where drugs were legalised and the results were positive, but I think the effects in countries such as the USA and the UK would be completely different to Portugal. There are many more people who currently make vast amounts of money from selling drugs to people, and they would not like their exclusive products to suddenly become widely available, so crime could well increase.

Usually I take a very libertarian stance on issues like this, but in this case I can only see that legalising drugs in the UK would cause more trouble than good. I like living in a relatively safe and stable society. This would probably cause havoc and misery and cause vast amounts of violence and further crime.

Alternatively, some drugs are used for medicinal purposes and I am heavily in favour of drugs being legal for medicinal purposes. If a doctor knows that a particular thing will help his or her patient, why shouldn't he be allowed to give it to them? It's what doctors are for. Having said that, if drugs were legalised for medical purposes they would need to be under strict regulation and the patients using them would need to be checked on closely so that any signs of addiction could be detected before it could develop into a serious problem.


23 October 2009

The BNP


Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time yesterday has sparked a lot of controversy. From it all, we can see this:

1. People are no longer viewed by people as having the right to express their views on national television if they differ to other people's views.
2. A lot of people misunderstand the BNP's policies and jump to conclusions.
3. Anyone with 'controversial' views that are not approved of by the majority of the population will not be allowed to partake in a fair and honest discussion, they will instead be attacked on all fronts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a BNP supporter, the policies that they have chosen to make clear, such as education and environmental issues are ones I heartily disagree with. For everything else, I think there can be no definite answer. Nick Griffin has been shady in the past about his views on immigration and the presence of other ethnicities in the UK. If what I have heard is true, then I disagree with his views.

However, he could simply be trying to pander to white 'British' (Anglo-Saxon) population. By providing someone to blame, ie foreigners, he has helped many people out. It's exactly what Hitler did. He disguised his genuine policies with those that are in the best interest of the population, and by attempting to intimidate British people by providing them with an enemy and a threat, Griffin can manipulate many stupid people who cannot think for themselves, which is unfortunately a great deal of our population, meaning he could win an election.

Alternatively, Griffin could simply be someone who cares greatly about his country and views immigration as a threat to the prestige of the UK. He's clearly an intelligent man, so there is probably more than meets the eye to his policies. The vast majority of his party is made up of mindless thugs, but there are some smart people at the top. It begs the question really, how can someone as intelligent as he is hold such views? (If indeed they are his views. Both him and the press are being deliberately deceptive). He may simply be a man who does not hold these opinions at all, rather he simply wants control of the country. And by providing stupid people with an enemy and misleading the same stupid people, he could gain enough supporters to be voted into power, with which he could do as he pleases.

As I've said, I don't agree with what Griffin is said to believe but I don't like the way that everyone jumps on the bandwagon of hating him just because they're 'supposed to'. People should think more about politics. He should also definitely be allowed to express his opinions through his political party and on television, and simply express them in general. If we ever lose the right to do these things, we will lose a basic right to express ourselves. Nobody will ever think outside the box and nobody will ever question the government's decisions, which I believe is a necessity. It allows the government to see both sides of an issue, so they can make a more rounded decision.

I also believe that people should not be persecuted, ridiculed and banned from expressing their opinions simply because they differ to most other people's opinions. Yes, you can say their policies are an affront to several basic human rights, but again, nobody truly knows what their policies are, and even so, it is simply a difference of opinion. Everybody should be allowed to express their opinions, be it through speech or their own political party. It's just a matter of opinion.

There is one thing I admire about Griffin though, and that is that he continues to stand up for what he believes in (despite it being utterly perverse), in the face of colossal opposition and general hatred towards him. It takes a special kind of devotion for a man to jeopardise his livelihood and security just to make his political views heard. Having said that, I sincerely hope the BNP never gain office in this country for several reasons:

1. Their policies are not clear. They have been deceptive in the past and they could well be now.
2. What the policies appear to be are ones that I completely disagree with and they are affronts to people's freedom.
3. It would mean that the majority of our population is easily manipulated and mislead, which would in turn mean that the majority of our population is stupid and there is no hope for us as a species.

Anyway, just wanted to make a point about that, as it's all over the news at the moment.


18 October 2009

Climate Change, The Future of Our Planet


How many times have you been told you need to help stop climate change (supposedly single handedly)? I'm willing to bet it'll be in the dozens. It appears that whenever you need to carry out a task, be it a simple, every-day task or a complicated scheme, the impacts of this task on climate change need to be considered, because we all need to 'save the planet' from our oh so disgusting and piteous selves.

The people that are telling you that you need to 'save the planet' and 'think of the polar bears' are usually single, middle aged women who have no job and nothing better to do than protest about something that they clearly haven't thought through.

All it takes is a few minutes skim reading a brief summary of the earth's history, and even an idiot can tell that the process the earth is going through at the moment - or about to enter fully - is entirely natural. We haven't broken the planet, we haven't messed it up as a species, all we've done is sped up an entirely natural process which we should easily be able to cope with and adapt to.

The protestors will tell you that when we enter the next ice age, we're all going to be doomed, so we must start recycling paper and farting less. Firstly, we are still technically in an ice age, so already you're hearing a falsehood. Secondly, if humanity has survived countless other 'ice ages' before now, and emerged intact, I seriously doubt that with our technology and infrastructure that we possess at the moment, we won't be able to survive a bit of ice. Having said that, my doubts about humanity's future increase every day. All it takes is anything Hannah Montana themed (amongst many other things) to crush any optimism before it has even germinated.

At the full extent of the 'last ice age', not all of the planet was covered with ice as you may have been led to believe. There were still plenty of areas of land with no ice covering them. In fact, the ice didn't even extend to the very south of England. Indeed, it will become much colder all over the world, but we can easily adapt. Unfortunately for supposed lesser species, they lack the brainpower to adapt nearly as quickly as us humans and many species will die, which is extremely undesirable. Animals are cute. They keep us company. But it's a natural process, and more should evolve to replace them - as went the entire history of life on earth before now. It's not as if humans are wiping our every shred of life on the planet other than our own. Evolution will occur, more animals will appear (albeit in a long time), it's that simple.

Everyone has become so caught up with 'saving the planet' that the measures they take interfere with basic practicality. You can't print anything anymore, because that one piece of paper you use from a pack of several hundred will definitely result in an impossibly high amount of trees being cut down. All your fault, Mr. Smith from London. The Amazonian villagers and polar bears will commit their lives to tracking you down and destroying you. There's no escape.


14 October 2009

The Military


I suppose the main problem I have with the military is the way it's portrayed by the media and the government. The military appeals to all sorts of people, bright and dumb. Personally I'm not sure why. But I think it may have something to do with the press and the government.

The papers seem very fond of idolising soldiers as national heroes. Anyone could be watching, especially children, and if they see the news channels and papers idolising soldiers and treating them like heroes, then they may too join the army and become paid thugs.

For a nation, the military is useful. It fights off invasions, keeps the country safe. Now, if our military were actually doing that, I'd understand the labeling of them as heroes. For the country anyway. On a biological basis they're simply people who have killed more than the other group of people.

But our military isn't doing that. The majority of the public continue to be blinded by the media into thinking that it's a great loss when we lose soldiers. It's not. The way I see it, a soldier is no different to a mercenary. Both of them kill people for money given to them by a group of people. For mercenaries, it could be anyone, with soldiers, it happens to be the state government. Another dead soldier is just one less mindless thug. Heartbreaking for a family, but not even mildly upsetting for a species.

Militaries always have been and continue to be used as pawns by governments to do whatever they require, which is not always to defend a state against invasion or serious threat to the majority of the population. So, children around the world are brainwashed into thinking that being a soldier is a heroic thing, a noble thing. It's disgusting.

There are TV adverts for the military, radio adverts and billboards advertising their presence to the population. At my school when I was in year 11, we went to a careers convention. There were different stalls for each career path and it was interesting and helpful. But with the biggest stall and the most exciting displays were for the military, ready to recruit children into the armies of governments to send wherever they like and be marked as 'expendable'. Most people my age weren't really aware of what was going on. Why should they be? They're just kids really, only a bit bigger.

Then at another time in the same year, we were told there was a trip to Biggin Hill, a localish air base where they put on air shows, which I think are pretty awesome. We were all tricked. The whole thing was one gigantic advert for the military, another ploy to persuade weak minded children into joining the military, killing other people for money. It's sickening.

So, when a child is convinced to join the military, they undergo a rigorous process of being broken down emotionally. Every ounce of their personality is removed until they're just a mindless drone, programmed to kill people that the government doesn't like. Personally, I don't see the attraction in being broken down into a creature with no imagination and no feelings anymore, and I'm sure if people who were signing up for the army realised what they were getting themselves in for, they would change their mind. I've learnt that soldiers even undergo emotional training, to teach them how to feel emtions that they've long since lost. Now that's pretty sad.

But instead of letting the puiblic know about the shocking reality, the image of the military is sold to us as one of great courage and honour, achieving great things in the name of justice. Well, I've got news for you. Most of the time it isn't. And it's just plain irresponsible of the authorities to attempt to recruit school children into the military, to train them up to kill others. If only they knew what they were getting themselves into.


10 October 2009

Mobile Phone Speakers


Before I begin, I'd just like to make it absolutely clear that I'd like to shoot the person who came up with the idea for these. But when you think about it, who is more stupid, Jnr. Sales Clerk Johnson or the Marketing Director who approved his idea? I like to think the conversation went a little like this:

'Sir, while I was sitting on my sofa watching Big Brother, I had a great Idea. Why don't mobile phones have speakers on them, so people can play whatever music they have on their phones - which is bound to be in a poor quality file format - wherever they go, where there are bound to be other people?'

'Johnson you're a genius! Nobody could possibly be annoyed by this, everyone will be happy! I'm giving you £1b to invest into this, there must be a huge potential market in the huge number of twats who used to walk around with radios on their shoulders, but can't anymore because they'd look like pricks! We'll be seen as liberators of the pricks!'

If only, if only the MD was correct. But God forbid, it did pass to the chavs. One can no longer go anywhere in public without a background noise of incredibly poor quality hip-hop music probably downloaded from Limewire assaulting one's eardrums.

What possesses people to do such a thing? They should at least have the decency to buy an MP3 player, nobody else would then have to listen to their crap all the time.

But then there's another thing. Why do people insist on having a constant personal soundtrack wherever they go? I can understand the attraction of listening to music personally on a journey somewhere, but while you're walking down a high street? You have only yourself to blame if you walk into a lamppost while flicking through 12 pirated Jay-Z albums [actually, I'm not even sure that he's created 12 what he calls 'albums' but whatever, I can't be bothered to check].

So where's the attraction in such a ghastly looking thing dangling from your mobile phone, spewing white noise as you walk along? I can't possibly see one. Maybe it's just me, but I believe this hellish creation was a bad idea.

Personally, I wait 'till I get home to listen to music, in my quiet room, with my highest-possible-quality-music on my excellent speakers, rather than walking down a miserable high street holding my phone out in front of me while it churns out diabolical sounding music and annoys anyone who passes within a square mile of myself (because you must have it that loud, blud).