Hate the player, not the game.

Following the release of the record-breaking and frankly awesome 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' - video games have, once again, been thrust into the spotlight and are being held as a major source of society's ills and dysfunction. The apparently infinitely-impressionable 'young people' of the world are again under the concerned scruitiny of the morally self-righteous, and riders of high-horses everywhere, as it emerged that some modern games contain ethically ambiguous scenarios, as well as the usual mix of hyper-realistic violence and frantic killing sprees.

I know, I know - awesome.

It always amazes me just how much effort is thrown into studying video games which are already widely available, to draw the usual tedious conclusions that violent material may have some impact on impressionable gamers.

In the past, the argument was a relatively simple case of pointing at violence in games, pointing at violence instigated by (usually) disenfranchised and troubled youngsters before basically saying 'you do the math' and hoping that it held water as a compelling case against the perils of this most demonised of entertainment formats. The arguments normally hold as much water as a broken colander, as they're based on wide assumptions about the nature of games and gamers alike, and are usually put forward by people clearly seeking the conclusions they draw.

Lately, however, the torch-bearers have upped their game. Swiss human-rights organisations 'Trial' and 'Pro Juventute', have released a detailed study into modern war games - specifically looking at the actions and consequences (or lack thereof) of the main protagonists.

Evoking the Geneva Convention, the study reports that the "practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is astonishing" - and further, that many "erroneous" messages about the nature of modern warfare were being distributed, as very few games reflected that characters who "violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, and not as winners". The study concludes with a call to game developers to be far more considerate in future, and try to incorporate elements of international humanitarian law - to better reflect the real-life consequences of waging war without good reason or with disproportionate use of force.

Yeah, that will be fun won't it? Expect to see the game manual replaced with a U.N guide to humanitarian law, and the guidelines to what constitutes a war crime, and any character who flouts these laws in-game to be processed by means of a lengthy and detailed court-marshall. That will be awesome! Maybe they'll even hold the player in a dirty cell for an unnecessarily long period like they did with Saddam, and some of the guards can film the hanging on their iPhones! I hope I get the clean death bonus!

The point I'm making, in my rather facetious manner, is that games have never been made to totally represent or re-produce real-life - the ones that have are called 'simulations', and are tearfully dull. Real life is what I experience for the majority of my time, it's mostly pretty boring and I spend too much of it drinking coffee and writing incensed rants for a blog that nobody reads. I feel I should be forgiven for wanting to escape that every once in a while, and if I use simulated violence to unwind, then so be it. Some people use actual violence, and that's at least marginally more damaging. But, while I play, I'm not so immersed that I can't distinguish between the game and real-life - and I don't believe that everything I play through is representative of the real world. Just like I don't believe the same things about films, tv, books or music. Nobody does really, because we're not the inept simpletons these research facilities believe us to be.

A simulation - yes you get to drive a train!

A game - yes you get to blow up aliens!

I think the real issue here is grounded in interactivity. Video games have become more and more engaging and immersing every year and, with the huge graphical advances of the past 5 years, also more 'realistic'. Never as realistic as a live-action movie of course - but the point here is that the player controls the actions of the protagonist of the story (to a degree), and therefore has a direct impact on the outcome of the scenario. Therefore, I believe the point they are trying to make (in their roundabout way) is that in their immersion the player will associate their in-game actions with the real-life organisations, and will not only develop their penchant for visceral extreme violence - but will feel vindicated as no judgement is held against them as they perpetrate heinous acts.

But that is like real-life isn't it? Forgive my naivety, but I thought that in real-life it was okay to invade practically defenseless countries under false pretences, wreak havoc that results in the death of nearly 50,000 civilians (far more than all military losses combined), and plunge the invaded nation into bloody sectarian violence that threatens the stability of the region before going on to hold successful careers as after-dinner speakers and peace envoys - never facing trial, or being held accountable for the groundless, illegal war you started. Maybe the Swiss don't see it this way from their island of neutrality - but in real life you can do all these things and more, you just have to be on the 'right' side. (Incidentally, studies into the Iraq conflict released this week go even further to discredit the 'WMD' motive for war)

"another fine mess"

Anyway, where I lose track of the argument is the leap between violent, unrestricted content in games and the real world. Now I can't speak for everyone - but I know that neither I, nor any of my friends, has ever been inspired to commit violence as a result of playing games. Furthermore, I don't believe that the vast majority of players make any link between the game world and the real world - no meaningful link at any rate.

In my experience, most gamers are mature and thoughtful. The most controversial element of the most recent Modern Warfare sees the player operating 'deep under cover' and finding it necessary to shoot civilians to prevent that cover being blown, and it has caused much disquiet amongst gamers and non-gamers alike. I felt uncomfortable myself, and didn't find the thought of the wholesale butchery of civilians an easy one at all - I'm not a world leader after all!

The media controversy only arises because people who don't play games assume that all games are designed for fun, and that this is another 'fun' level. I can see why it might upset people who believe that, but it's just not true. Just as films have scenes of murder or rape, and books might carry themes of child abuse or drug use - games have equally challenging scenes to play through. In all media, themes like these are an uncomfortable moment to experience - but in the wider context of the story, they are normally justified.

Games are simply entertainment, and I welcome more challenging and thought-provoking content in them in future. It's clear to me that video games have matured along with the people who play them, and while they're not always true to life - I don't think that really matters, as we've seen time and again, real-life doesn't always play by the rules either.

BBC Story here.

Shadappa ya face...

Italians love fascism. They invented that shit, and it turns out it's hard for them to shake it off - even in this so-called enlightened age. This is evident from the recent decision to review a law that renders the Italian Premier immune from prosecution while in office.

I'm personally amazed that any such law exists in the first place. If we remember our political philosophy, 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' - and surely we learned a little something from two world wars? Apparently not - Italy's fascistic hangover has incubated a culture of automatic amnesty for those who one would assume would need it least. I suppose it all depends on the type of person finding themselves in power and, as we've learned time and again, Silvio Burlusconi (Italy's current dictator) is a complete tool.

scary chap

In Britain, we don't take our politicians acting up. True, sometimes it takes a while to come round to it - but when something's up, it's good to know that heads will roll (figuratively speaking). Not so in Italy it seems - the immunity law has allowed Burlusconi to withdraw from a number of cases in the past - including one for corruption in office. Opponents of sneaky Silvio say that the special treatment of the head of state totally undermines the concept that all citizens are equal before the law. That it does, but these things are rarely so straight-forward - Burlusconi has presented the compelling argument that his immunity allows him to govern without being 'distracted' by the judiciary.

Oh dear, it is so dreadfully distracting being charged with corruption when one is trying to present oneself as a trust-worthy world leader isn't it? Poor old Silvio - he's had such a hard time of it, being distracted from his pioneering work in 'hanging out with topless models' bill by those pesky courts. Yes, the hard-working Premier is arguably too busy filling his cabinet with a bevvy of beauties, having models over to his villa to frolic around nude, and suppressing pictures of the event (making it illegal to publish them in Italy), to be bothered by the trifling matter of whether or not he bribed a lawyer to give false evidence about him. That's understandable, right? Wrong.

Happily, the Spanish media has published the pictures for everyone's benefit - and whilst they don't show anything particularly incriminating (apart from the fact that Silvio was still with his wife at the time), they do undermine the man's scandal-weathered credibility even further and hopefully it's incidents like this which will lead to absurd laws like this being overturned, and ridiculous tyrants like Burlusconi being ousted.

(Link to pictures, published by Spanish media)

BBC News story here.

Named and shamed

We all know that names are important. The right name can give it's owner a distinct advantage in life, making them more memorable when they most need it. It's well known that many actors and musicians change their given names for this very purpose, it's been going on for centuries.

chosen one

Mozart chose 'Amadeus' (meaning 'Love of God') as his middle name, Dirk Bogarde used to be 'Derek Gentron Gaspart Ulric van den Bogaerde', and, unsurprisingly, Engelbert Humperdinck isn't a real name either - born to a British Army officer and his wife in Madras, 1936 - Engelbert is really 'Arnold Dorsey'.

Another twist to the tale is the notion of 'nominative pre-determinism' - the idea that a person may grow to work a job or perform a function which appears directly related to their name. One of the more famous examples of this is the 19th-century plumber, and 'toilet innovator' - Thomas Crapper. Contrary to popular belief - he wasn't the inventor of the flushing toilet, nor the inspiration for the use of the word 'crap' in this context, but he did make significant advances in the field of feces - including the invention of the ballcock, a system still in use today.

'Crapper's Valveless Waste Preventer'

Unreliable examples of the phenomenon are well-documented in the 'Happy Families' card game, such as Mr. Bun the baker, Mr. Green the grocer - and the far less popular, Mr. Pounce the serial rapist.

Sometimes, the two sides of the story come together with tragic consequences. Today sees the conviction and imprisonment for life of the US rapper 'C-Murder', for the fatal shooting of a teenage fan in Louisiana in 2002.

Assumedly, 'Corey Miller' just didn't sound outwardly violent enough to the gun-toting simpleton, and he decided to assume the new identity in order to make his intentions clear. I think the 'C' must stand for 'child' - since the victim of his idiocy was 16-year-old fan Steven Thomas.

If only he had assumed the identity 'C-Cuddler' or 'C-Lovely', but I suppose being nice to people isn't really the point of being a successful musician - it's more about shooting your teenage fans to death outside nightclubs.

BBC story here.

I don't know art, but I know what I like...

The line between music and performance art is constantly being smudged and re-drawn. Notably, recent 'chart sensation' Lady GaGa has challenged the public's view of art in music - effortlessly blending distastefully elaborate costumes and set designs with bland, repetitive electro-pop bollocks.

It's truly engaging stuff, if one has suffered some form of brain damage or undertaken a frontal lobotomy, and her winning formula of bright colours and underpants has assured her position in the annals of music history.

po-po-po-poke her face. with a pointed stick if possible.

Oddly for a musician, Lady GaGa seems utterly pre-occupied with image. I know that 'the look' is very important for any serious music act, but I don't feel it should be one's primary concern. Speaking from her and Lord GaGa's New York estate (I assume there is a Lord GaGa), the first lady of leotards is quoted as saying;

"When I'm writing music, I'm thinking about the clothes I want to wear on stage"

Personally, I'd be thinking about the music - but I am something of a traditionalist in that sense. I'm not so naive to deny that image is important in music - I just can't see costume being at the forefront of most credible artist's minds when they pen their latest track.

Lady GaGa is lucky though; someone else has come along to de-throne her as the most contrived contributor to art in music, and as such has re-directed my scorn. The 'music painter' known as Kilford is a self-styled 'rock n' roll artist' from London. Unschooled in art, his craft consists of painting along as he 'sees' music - either at home by request, or live on stage with the band.

The finished products are discordant medleys of colour and brush-strokes, and are reminiscent of paintings by elephants - a popular staple of children’s TV and light entertainment.

He also says ‘man’, a lot.

(top - Kilford, bottom - an elephant)

Kilford has speculated on whether or not he has the extremely rare condition ‘synaesthesia’, which manifests itself as visual representations of shapes and colours when a sufferer hears music, but has not had himself diagnosed;

“Some people say I have it… but I haven't been to a doctor with things zapped on my head or anything…I've studied it…I wanted to understand it a little bit more, and it was interesting to see the repetitive shapes and colours in there."

Yes, it is interesting to see the repetitive shapes and colours – no wait I don’t mean interesting, I mean repetitive.

Whilst I think this kind of abstract art does have a place, the more I look at Kilford’s work, the more I feel the man is a charlatan. In between his misguided brushwork, whenever it seems he stops ‘seeing’ the music, Kilford resorts to just daubing the lyrics of the particular song he’s listening to onto the canvas;

Leona Lewis - Bleeding Love

There’s something very teenage-angst about incorporating poignant lyrics into an artwork, and to me it suggests a profound lack of vision.

For Kilford, it seems, art is all about music – and despite this not being his medium of choice, he is determined that his work has value and place – if not in the art world, then in music;

"For a good two to three years, people were like: 'what are you doing, man?' But musicians dig it. They really get it. A lot of art people don't perhaps get it, but I don't really care."

Yeah, that’s right mate – they don’t get it. It’s my suspicion that the musicians don’t necessarily ‘get it’ either, and many acts will use any gimmick they can to make their stage shows a little bit different. It’s a well known trick – Alice Cooper, the king of gimmicks, has used elaborate on-stage props for decades to keep his audience interested. The ‘music painter’ is such a gimmick, and if anyone is claiming to ‘get it’ – it’s my suspicion that they’re under the illusion that there’s something to get.

Something by Status Quo

The bottom line is - I would love to be able to distinguish different songs through a purely visual medium, that concept in itself excites me quite a lot. However, if we take the majority of his work on face value – it seems that most music sounds nearly exactly the same to Kilford – like a pinkish magic-eye image of a pile of vomit – something I think the K-man recognises;

“Is it pretty, is it not pretty? I'm not sure. Is it aesthetically beautiful? Some of them aren't."

Some of them? Right.

I’m not saying that art has to be beautiful either, that would be crazy, but I do feel that if one can’t produce work which is pleasing to the eye, then one should display a degree of proficiency and technical skill, or at least produce a compelling concept to connect the subject with the work, and I just don’t think that Kilford does that. I think he just turns up.

Judging by this picture - I think he would have liked to have been a rock-star. More specifically, as a self-confessed ‘indie music junkie’, I think he would have liked to have been in the Stone Roses. I don’t know if the man has any talent for music, but I do know he has no talent for art – so it may be time for a career change.

Perhaps I’m being too judgemental, and I should take it all as a bit of fun. Like the guy says;

"That's what it's all about man, getting out there and making art rock 'n' roll... otherwise it's boring. And I don't want to do anything boring."

I don’t mind about that – but he also doesn’t seem to want to do anything good. The old cliché with modern and abstract art is the feeling that ‘I could do that’ – and yes, I feel I could do that.

The only difference between us is that he did it first.

BBC Feature here.

Healthy Democracy

The balance of spending money at government level is a notoriously tricky business. As we all know, you can't please all the people all the time - but it's probably justified to think that the government should have a bloody good go at it. President Obama appears to be trying to do just that, and yet is facing incredible difficulty and opposition as he tries to push through healthcare reforms in the U S of A.

Hmmmmmmmm.

In Britain, we take our healthcare for granted. We whinge, gripe and moan about the National Health Service and it's apparent failings regularly - but do we have the right to, because we pay for it through taxation. Established after WWII by Clement Atlee's Labour government, the NHS is the product of a welfare state, determined to promote equality amongst it's people, and improve the health of a nation permanently. The grounding principles of the NHS ensure that to today, the provision of healthcare is based on clinical need and not the ability to pay.

Perhaps such a system would be too difficult to implement in a sprawling giant of a country like the US, but it would seem prudent to move closer towards a more inclusive healthcare system - especially when 47 million people have no health insurance, and a further 25 million are under-insured for their needs. Ethnic minorities and low-income families are still the most likely to live without health insurance, and the issue is a constant reminder of the inequity between citizens of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. Year on year, the US spends the most per capita on healthcare globally, but due to the very competitive nature of the sector - the quality of care for those most in need is usually relatively poor.

The reform that president Obama proposes aims to reduce the cost of healthcare, increase choice, and widen coverage for the average American. All noble goals - but, unsurprisingly, the plans are being opposed at every turn by the president's political opponents - all of whom are very well covered by their generous government health insurance policies.

One of the major criticisms of his plan, and the one most likely to see it fail at congress, is the cost. The estimated bill to the nation stands at roughly 1 Trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) over 10 years, and with the economy in the state it is - anything that costs so much is surely doomed to failure.

Well, maybe not. After all, the US taxpayer has been more than happy to fork out for a good cause in the past - and let's not forget how keen they are on protecting their own - universal healthcare should be right up their street.

For example in 2008, in the name of US security, the continuing 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' cost the nation a staggering $711 Billion. Accounting for an incredible 48% of global military expenditure that year, and 98.6 times more than the pathetic $7.2 Billion spent by arch-nemesis Iran, the US spent more than the next 45 highest spending countries combined on military purposes.

source: armscontrolcenter.org

I can't argue that it isn't value for money though. It all must go somewhere - as compared to a paltry 753 US fatalities in Iraq since the war began (accurate at time of writing) - the US have managed to wipe out an impressive 9,155 insurgency fighters, not to mention a horrifying estimated 100,000 civilian lives. Civilian deaths are difficult to verify of course - since they're normally a result of air-strikes or suicide attacks, and most are too mangled or crushed to identify as human - it's probably a lot more than we know of.

Not that all of these are directly a result of American attacks - but they didn't exactly increase the life expectancy of the average Iraqi when they willingly and knowingly plunged the country into sectarian violence. We all make mistakes though, right?

But surely, I hear you cry, there's more to protecting your own people than killing people in other countries? In a way, I think preserving the health of your own civilians should take precedence over destroying the lives of others - and when it comes down to brass tax, it's a lot cheaper too. Barack Obama's health reform proposition would see $1 Trillion spent over 10 years, which sounds like a lot - even to potentially save countless lives - but when one compares this with the $5.6 Trillion they have invested in taking lives over the last nine years, it doesn't seem so expensive - and perhaps even a little more useful.

They don't even have to give up shooting people either. As news today proves - you're never too young to start dishing out the friendly fire in America. If they just stayed home and shot each other up - not only would it be a lot cheaper than sending the world's most advanced armed forces to dusty countries around the world - but they could make full use of their brand new public health service, and have a few trillion left over to spend on extra bullets.

Just a thought.

Smoke and Mirrors

Further proving the inability of those in power to see the 'bigger picture', Liverpool Primary Care Trust has forwarded their plans to automatically classify films featuring characters smoking as '18s' in local cinemas. In a response to the prevalence of under-18's smoking in their city, the PCT is claiming the proposed scheme would help stub the problem out - and that half of the city's estimated 5,300 young smokers have been directly influenced by seeing film stars puffing away.

The direct influence of watching movie stars smoking can be expressed using what has become widely regarded as the most reliable measure of the phenomenon known as 'dude persuasion' - or the 'James Dean principle of aesthetic relativity'. Simply put;

if (A) James Dean is cool, and (B) James Dean is smoking,

then; (C) Smoking is cool.

see? it's awesome!!!

Films of historical significance, and films which carry a distinct anti-smoking message (because there are thousands of these) are exempt from re-classification, and the policy also wouldn't affect classic movies - assumedly they are aware of the strength of the 'James Dean principle of aesthetic relativity' as an example of 'perfect logic' - leaving only new releases to become the preserve of over-18s only.

To my mind, it's just another short-sighted policy proposal, designed so the PCT can appear to be doing the right things - whilst simultaneously drawing attention away from the fact that they have no idea how to actually combat the problem. The proposal is grounded in such a vague, unproven claim that I don't believe it's even seriously being suggested - I think they know it won't go anywhere, but at least they can say they tried.

For a start, this is Liverpool. Even if the proposal was taken up, it's not like these films wouldn't be seen by under-18s anyway - every community has it's 'Dodgy Dave' with his rucksack of copied DVDs.

Caaaalm down

That's really beside the point though. I don't believe anyone seriously goes to the cinema and makes the decision to start smoking. It's widely held as true that if your family and friends smoke, you are more likely to start yourself - and I imagine that is still true for most cases of young people taking up the habit.

If you really want to combat under-age smoking, you need to target the sources of social deprivation and increase education. If people really understand how seriously bad it is for your health - they can make the informed decision to take the risks or not - I don't think that restricting the kind of films people can see is helpful in any way.

Finally, as if we needed any more proof of Liverpool PCT's incompetence, of the under-18s who smoke in Liverpool - how many are actually over 16? I only ask, as 16 is still the minimum legal age for smoking in the UK, despite the legal age to buy smoking materials being raised to 18 in October 2007.

This disparity between being allowed to buy cigarettes and being allowed to smoke them is highly counter-productive in my opinion - if we really want our kids to stop, then it should be made illegal to smoke under the age of 18 too. Raising the minimum age for purchase, and potentially blocking under-18s from seeing films with smoking in, is utterly pointless when it's still perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law for under 18s to actually take up the habit. Let's face it, if they can do it - they will.

BBC News story - here.

Apathy is the glove into which evil slips it's hand.

Following a week of political turmoil in British Government (even more so than usual), the wider media has flown into a frenzy of panic and despair as the right-wing British National Party have made significant gains in both local council elections and the European Parliament.

Nick Griffin

The response of the BBC (and, it seems, many people's facebook status) is to give a lot of air-time to people who oppose the BNP (which is nearly everyone), and to generate an atmosphere of injustice, as right-wing politics enjoys unprecedented success in the UK.

As party leader Nick Griffin arrived at the North West count at Manchester's town hall - he was set upon by angry protesters, who surrounded his vehicle and broke one of the windows. Even as he tried to deliver his victory speech, members of the various opposition parties 'symbolically' walked out of the room - leaving him with a perfect opportunity to wax on about how they turn their backs on him as they turn their backs on the electorate that granted him the seat.

In the days following the result, protests have been held in towns across the North West and Yorkshire, and prominent political figures have spoken out, some labelling the result as 'terrible'. Conservative leader David Cameron even claimed to be 'sickened' by the outcome of the European Election.

sickened

It's all very upsetting and confusing for people with moderate (or even rational) views - and I can fully understand why people are protesting and speaking out over this, but the fact of the matter is that we have no right to complain.

One of the most fundamental principles of a functioning democracy, is the right to free election. Coupled with the right to free speech, effectively this means that anyone can say what they like - and potentially, they can be elected into office if enough people agree with their views. The moral outrage expressed by political figures and protesters after the BNP were democratically elected to office last week, are empty sentiments - they may as well be opposing the values that our democracy is grounded in.

True, their disgruntled remarks are supported by the same free speech that saw the BNP elected - but the vehement backlash is hardly a constructive reaction to the outcome of a legitimate democratic process. A phrase about locking stables and horses bolting springs to mind.

The plain fact is, the BNP received a large enough share of the vote to achieve representation in Lancashire county council, and in the European parliament. This was achieved through a democratic process to which we all subscribe. To complain about it after the matter is simply churlish, and offensive to anyone who truly believes in the principles of freedom and democracy.

And let's face it, it's not even as if they have had it easy. Throughout the BNP's campaign, their efforts were hampered by people opposed to their extreme standpoints on immigration and other related issues - even the heads of the Anglican Church urged people to boycott their campaign and direct their votes elsewhere.

Rowan Williams

To my mind - political freedom is inseparable from religious freedom. The distancing of state and religion is something which sets the UK apart from a lot of the world, and it is wholly inappropriate for the heads of a national faith group to urge anyone to vote in any direction. Whether or not they support or endorse a political group, it is not the place of religious leaders to say so publicly. I can't help but feel that if they had encouraged people to boycott a popular party, the political establishment wouldn't have stood for it.

Not that I'm inclined to jump to the defence of the BNP, the very fact that they have such extreme views forces them to face harsher scrutiny than others, but it is simply undemocratic to directly influence an entire swathe of the public on political matters, especially when you are a prominent member of a world faith.

However, despite the best efforts of the Anglican Church, the BNP seem to be doing better than ever before - prompting mass outcry from reasonable people across the country.

Sadly, their efforts arrive too late. I'm sure there have been numerous anti-BNP rallies before the elections last week, I even joined one myself once in Blackpool, but the most effective method of keeping the BNP down isn't marching or shouting (or throwing eggs) - it's voting, and it's the one thing that didn't happen last week.

True, the BNP have achieved a greater share of the votes in both the Lancashire local elections and in North Yorkshire for the European elections - but the fact is, they received fewer votes overall than at the last ballots in 2004. The only reason they have succeeded this time is due to mass disenfranchisement and apathy at the hands of the politically moderate.

People who would have normally voted for Labour stayed away from the polling stations in droves, and thousands abstained from involvement in these elections altogether. The BNP may be calling it a victory, and marketing it as an increase in support for their views - but if you judge it on the numbers, and I do, technically they have less support than 4 years ago - and only achieved the seats they did because fewer people voted in general, not because more people voted for them.

BNP Propaganda

(who has ever suggested that Britain would become 'Islamic'???)

So, my message to the country (I know they're listening) is to just stop worrying. The BNP have secured seats on two very separate assemblies, through which I don't think they will achieve a great deal. They face an incredible uphill struggle to make any serious changes to policy in a country which has gladly accepted immigrants and new settlers for centuries. The fallout of empire should naturally be support for people from the ex-colonies, which is where the vast majority of 'foreign' settlers have come from over the years. After all - we went to their countries and took from them, building one of the world's strongest economies in the process (well, it was).

Why would Manchester want to lose Rusholme's 'curry mile', or Notting Hill lose their Carribean carnival? Would the BBC Asian network simply pack up its bags, or the MOBOs be called off? I'm not inclined to believe that anyone I know would happily let these things happen, so for that reason - I'm glad.

I'm glad the BNP have succeeded, and that they have the opportunity to be heard on a national and international stage, I'm glad more people will see what they stand for. Let them stand up and speak, let their policies be heard - then the world can judge them for what they are. A wise man once said, 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all', this is more true today than is has ever been. Don't let their ignorance turn us into fascists like them - democracy put them where they are, and democracy shall remove them again.

Stop throwing eggs and walking out of speeches, stop closing our eyes and ears to what they have to say. The BNP need no help in discrediting themselves, they are perfectly capable of messing their campaign up on their own.

Frankly, it will be a joy to watch.

Tall Order

Stingy staff of the 'Angel Chef' Chinese restaurant in Gloucestershire have forced an outraged family to pay the full adult buffet rate for their son, claiming that he was 'too tall' to qualify for the children's rate. Ten year old Ben Gardner was measured by staff, and was judged to be a full 9cm taller than their highly scientific system for judging a person's ability to eat Chinese food, and hence his father was forced to fork out (ahahahaha) for another full-price adult cover.

Mmmmmmm.

Since the height system has been in place for over a year, and the rules are clearly marked on the wall of the restaurant (next to the height chart presumably) - the Angel Chef will not be issuing a refund to the recession-hit, credit-crunched family.

My advice is for the Gardners to return to the restaurant with a horde of adult midgets, as long as they're under 4'11", all hungry for revenge. Let's see if they stick to the height policy when they're overrun by a shire-load of little folk...

Ironically of course, the world's tallest man is Chinese. If he was to turn up, would the height policy pricing increase exponentially? Of course not - he's like their king or something.

BBC Story here.

Tolerance

If there’s one thing I can’t abide, simply won’t live with - it’s intolerance. In all its forms, by definition, intolerance annoys me. Invariably it manifests itself in uninformed prejudicial statements, made by one person or group holding certain opinions, against a particular type of person or school of thought. Religious intolerance, sexual intolerance, racial intolerance, and political intolerance – these things are not the hallmarks of a healthy, well-adjusted mind.

That said, there is one thing that annoys me more than intolerance – something which is the enemy of progression, and constantly beleaguers efforts to incubate genuine social harmony - and that’s tolerance. Let me be clear, I’m not simultaneously whinging about protagonists from two sides of the same argument. I think it’s more or less impossible to sit on the fence about issues like racism and prejudice and, for the record, I am against those sort of things on principle.

Rather, the reason for my disaffection with tolerance is syntactically driven – I take issue with the term itself. When politicians encourage us to exercise tolerance, or the police enforce tolerance in fragmented communities, or at political rallies – it really undermines the principles behind what they claim to be trying to do, by using such a ridiculous word.

I tolerate idiots, I tolerate bad food, I even tolerate Orlando Bloom - but the overriding characteristic of my tolerance is generally an accompanying hatred for the subject of it. I tolerate things because I’m a rational human being who doesn’t want to get involved in unnecessary conflict, and I also want to be able to watch ‘Lord of the Rings’ without attempting to gouge out my eyes, rupture my eardrums, or otherwise render myself sensorially deprived so not to experience the on-screen masterclass in dead-pan delivery and vacant stares delivered by the Bloomer. Hence, quite sensibly, I exercise tolerance.

I find it deeply troubling that many people’s best efforts to get along with people who look different to themselves, or believe things opposing their own views, only stretches to ‘tolerance’. It seems a very British thing to do. Even if you can’t stand someone for a reason as integral to their very being as their ethnic background or sexuality – we are constantly advised to just button up about it, tolerate their differences and get on with our own lives. This doesn’t help anything in the long-term; it only encourages people to continue living apart from each other and to avoid the integration of normally conflicting communities.

If we only practice tolerance, then the persistent problems of perceived and actual social divisions will continue unnoticed. Brushing our issues under proverbial rugs only saves them up for someone to find when we finally move house. No, tolerance isn’t enough. The big political hitters will wax on, if allowed, about the success of Britain’s relative tolerance with regards to ethnic minorities and people’s religious differences – but I don’t want to live in a tolerant society, for as long as we only tolerate people – we do not accept them.

We need to learn that when it comes to people (not Orlando Bloom actually, he has no soul), tolerance is simply insufficient. We should strive to embrace people because of their differences, not in spite of them. There’s nothing healthy or intelligent about ethnically or ideologically homogenous communities, even within the context of a broader multi-cultural society. Maybe it’s just me, but I like to learn as much as I can about every type of person, hear their music, and eat their foods. As ever, I am motivated by my stomach – but to me it’s as good a reason as any to get to know people better.

To wrap up - I think the main point you should take from this enlightening essay is one of hope. I know the world’s in a bad way right now, but think ahead to the inevitable zombie apocalypse. When marauding undead hordes roam the land, killing people regardless of their race, beliefs or sexuality – we will see a seismic shift in people’s attitudes. When zombies (or aliens if you prefer) attack - all the old grudges will have to be thrown aside.

Be you Jewish or Muslim, black or white, gay or straight – we will all need to work together to rid our world of the living dead at all costs. My advice, disable the enemy by removing the head, or destroying the brain. I’ll repeat that – removing the head, or destroying the brain.

Just think about it, okay?

Christian AIDS

As Spiderman taught us, with great power comes great responsibility, and for those of us who navigate life's stormy waters with a moral compass grounded in the teachings of comic book superheroes - this wisdom serves us well. Sadly - it seems that Pope Benedict XVI hasn't seen Spiderman, despite it having been out for seven years, and makes his big decisions based on a totally different book - one without pictures, the word 'Shazam', or even a clear moral code that isn't at odds with it's own teachings.

Unlike Spiderman's straight-forward ethics, the Bible is open to interpretation - and one thing the Catholics have always been keen on is the idea that contraception is inherently wrong in all its forms. While this issue isn't necessarily a big problem in the context of a healthy family-based relationship - when the same message is preached to deeply religious congregations in the AIDS-stricken countries across Africa, the implication of putting the idea into practice is a little more worrying.

Defending the Church's' traditional stand on the issue - God's 'representative on earth' spoke out to journalists during his flight to Cameroon, advising hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide;

"Don't use condoms - even to prevent the spread of AIDS"

You heard right - two wrongs don't make a right in this Pope's book. To counter the spread of a highly infectious, life-threatening virus by committing the 'sin' of preventing an unconscious blob of cells the chance to mix with further unconscious cells (a sin against the teachings of a wholly improven entity no less) is just a bridge too far for the Catholic church. Of course this was always going to be his position, even he doesn't have the power to re-align the Catholic church's approach to this issue, but to put it so bluntly (as millions of African Catholics hang on his every word) is a little bit troubling to say the least.

There are currently around 22 million Africans infected with the HIV virus, and a large number of those infected don't know that they are. It is estimated that nearly a fifth of all Africans are Catholic too - which makes for some pretty scary numbers when you consider the Pope's advice. Don't fret too much though - this is a pontiff with a plan. His solution? Just stop having sex. It clearly works for him, so Benedict XVI is happy to impart the advice to a continent in crisis. Advocating simple abstinence, he remarked;

"the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids"

Well, yeah - that and condoms.

To me, the notion that the use of condoms is somehow more ethically 'wrong' than totally ignoring the risk of cross-infection of the world's most dangerous viruses, is so morally repugnant that it's terrifying to hear it come from the lips of one of the world's most powerful and influential people. The number of followers who hang on his every syllable, believing him to be the conduit of the Lord's divine influence on Earth, is incredible - and many rely on him to guide them in all matters of morality.

I just feel there are quite important enough things at stake, like the futures of entire nations, that it would make more sense to rely on science, than to listen to the health advice of an old man in a hat in Rome. I am far more scared of AIDS than I am of God, and I would feel a lot happier if important issues like this were dealt with by scientists and medical professionals. At the end of the day, the bible says the whole world was created in just seven days, between only six and ten thousand years ago, and that all womankind was conjured from the surplus rib of a single man.

In a way, I don't want it used as a medical handbook.

BBC News article here

Twitter

I do feel like the last to show up to a party, but today I embarked on my journey into 'Twitter', the sensation in real-time blogging which counts many high-profile celebrities and public figures amongst it's members. Soon after joining, I elected to 'follow' one of my personal heroes, Stephen Fry, and man-of-the-hour Barack Obama. President Obama's Twitter seems to largely be about policy and serious government stuff, and I doubt he personally updates it, but it is a surreal feeling when he seems to update you on his business.

Stephen Fry is an active user and second most-followed on the site (after Mr Obama of course), a confirmed technophile - today I learned that he is in New York but too tired to shop. There is, of course, no value to knowing this - but it's nice to know he's ok.

I'm still unsure as to the point of Twitter, which seems to be a scaled down version of facebook really (if you read 'followers' as 'friends', and any post as your personal 'wall') - most users appear to be using it to wrest a response from celebrities. I admit I tried myself within minutes - replying to one of Fry's posts with a tenous reference to one of his novels in an attempt to provoke a response.

It didn't work - he doesn't care about me. I am one in over 280,000 though.

Anyway, if you're interestered - here's my page.

UPDATED - woah, Twitter is boring. Account deleted.

Damn Dirty Ape

'Santino', a male chimpanzee at a Furuvik zoo in Sweden, is reportedly responsible for master-minding and carrying out gorilla (ahahaha) attacks on visitors to the zoo, by launching rocks and stones from his own personal stash. This revelation is of great significance, as it goes some way to proving an animal's ability to anticipate future events, and to even make plans for when they happen.

Workers at the zoo found that Santino was calmly stock-piling missiles around the visitor viewing area of his enclosure, prior to opening time, and raised no cause for alarm. However, later in the day, when Santino judged there were too many people peering in on him, he became visibly excited and agitated - launching his artillery strike on the stunned Swedes.

good lad

Further interesting the zookeepers and scientists, the cheeky monkey has displayed the ability to judge which parts of his enclosure are adaptable to construct weapons with - as he inspects the concrete 'boulders' for weak spots by listening for hollows, and then cracks them open to provide himself with extra ammo. Not only this, but he has also shown relative indifference when small numbers of visitors are present in the low season at the zoo - reserving his main strikes for larger crowds, and saving his attacks for when they are most effective.

Santino sounds like one clever guy, and this is rightfully exciting for scientists and biologists, however it does seem to highlight what many of us suspect about animals in captivity. Santino cannot be a happy bunny, or even a happy ape, if his reaction to crowds of people looking in on him is to attack them with stones.

I am under no illusions of the benefits of protecting certain species in captivity for scientific or conservation purposes - but I do believe that the concept of the zoo, introduced millenia ago and popularised in the modern era by Imperial ambitions, is outmoded and outdated, and (based on evidence like this) certainly damaging to intelligent animals.

Santino himself is displaying the aggressive and territorial behaviour natural of chimps, the difference is that he only has a fraction of the territory to range in of his wild counterparts - so his cause for aggravation is realised far more frequently than is natural, as 'foreign' tribes approach his territory on a daily basis in their hundreds.

I'm not sure - it's a very wide-ranging issue, but for me - this indicates that certainly our closest animal relatives, along with other animals of higher intelligence, can never thrive in captivity. Santino's actions are amazing, and of great scientific value, but they do betray an underlying unease and clearly demonstrate that he isn't happy at all.

BBC story here

Golly, what?

Perennial posh person and daughter of a tyrant, Carol Thatcher has courted controversy this week as the news broke that she referred to a black tennis star as a 'golliwog' in casual conversation in a BBC green-room. The BBC, supposedly tired of scandals and tabloid-led outrage by now, wasted no time in sacking the 'One Show' correspondent in light of these remarks.

Children's favourite - the golliwog

Aside from the usual 'political-correctness-gone-mad' response, the situation has prompted more interest than it would have - as Carol Thatcher has demanded an apology from the BBC for what she sees as poor treatment on their part. In a radio interview with her agent, Team Thatcher has made it clear they feel it is 'outrageous' that her conversation was leaked to the public - and that the nature of its release suggests some kind of hidden agenda within the BBC, or at least involving the person responsible for the leak.

Ms Ali Gunn (Thatcher's agent) spoke out on Talksport radio earlier this week;

"I would like to say that this comment was made in jest afterwards in the green room over a drink and no-one objected to it at the time. I think it's absolutely outrageous that the BBC has condoned this leak...They haven't even disciplined the member of staff...they should be issuing us with an apology"

Now I'm not so naive as to consider the golliwog doll inherently racist, it is after all just a doll, and the people who leap on band-wagons on either side of the argument are really missing the point. There is no need to fight for this particular piece of British history, nor remove it from the shelves of our shops - but Thatcher's remarks are still racist, stupid, and a big problem.

Carol Thatcher

People in the public eye have always had to watch what they say. Slips of the tongue are all too easy, and many would hope to be judged on what they do - not what they say. However, in this case, Thatcher will be judged on what she has done and said - and judged quite harshly on both. Regardless of the innocence of the golliwog itself, when the term is applied to a real person - it is certainly racist. Particularly, because variations of the term have been used freely in the past - with the intention of carrying negative and offensive connotations.

The fact is, if you want to describe someone - there are a multitude of things you can draw on. A person's character and temperance, or even physical appearance are immediate examples - you may end up being cruel to that person, but you won't offend their race. By describing any black person as a 'golliwog', you are effectively diminishing their character and personality to the point that only their skin colour is relevant to you. The golliwog doll's overriding characteristic is its black 'skin', there's really not much else to it - I don't believe she meant to refer to a golliwog's sporting ability, for example.

What I find most objectionable, however, is Thatcher's inability to apologise or even admit some kind of wrongdoing on her part, coupled with her audacity at demanding an apology. Even if the comment was 'made in jest' and 'no-one objected to it at the time' - it is still a racist remark made by public figure within the walls of a media corporation, and a corporation which upholds a commitment to telling the truth.

Furthermore, I simply cannot conceive of the context in which a comparison between black people and golliwogs is totally harmless - 'in jest' as team Thatcher would have us believe. It seems obvious to me that their approach of coming out 'all guns blazing' and demanding an apology is an attempt to mislead the public. One might be inclined to side with them, or at least believe it to not matter so much, simply by merit of the strength of their conviction in her innocence. All they're really admitting to is that, in the best case scenario, she made a racist joke - that's still totally inappropriate.

At the very, very least - it was particularly stupid of her to say it considering her surroundings. In reality, it has betrayed a less than appealing side to her nature - and her ongoing battle to have someone apologise to her is just making things worse.

BBC News Story here.

Panic Over

Don't worry everyone - despite a crumbling infrastructure, nearly non-existent healthcare and emergency services, a fre-falling economy and hyper-inflation gripping the nation of Zimbabwe in the midst of a cholera epidemic - President Mugabe says everything is fine.

Concerned that the current state of his nation could be used as a pretext for 'invasion' by the UK, France and the US - President Mugabe has reassured the world that his government has 'stopped' the cholera outbreak and any such intervention by the global powers is now totally unnecessary.

knobhead

The President of this most pear-shaped of banana republics went further, going on to draw parallels between his nation and Britain - in order to highlight the blatant hypocrisy at work:

"Shall we also say that (because) there is Mad Cow Disease, there must be war - Britain must be invaded"

Alright, for one - well done on being such a well informed world leader, the Mad Cow material is only about ten years out of date. Why not use Karen Matthews? She's even nearly a legitimate reason for invasion.

Secondly, your powers of comparison seem a little skewed to me Mr Mugabe. 'Mad Cow Disease' is an easily-controlled animal disease which rarely makes the jump to humans, and Britain had the infrastructure and public services to effectively deal with it when it was at it's height in the late nineties. Cholera, on the other hand, is another easily-controlled disease which is currently killing hundreds of your people where they stand, and its rapid spread is indicative that vast swathes of your country are lacking in even the most basic sanitation facilities.

No, but you're right - it's the same scenario isn't it?

Twat.

BBC story here

Cheap Sex

As the credit crunch tightens everyone's purse strings, we all need to find ways to entertain ourselves without having to raid the piggy bank. I personally enjoy an afternoon tending to my collection of interesting moss, followed by a session racing workhouse orphans round the city centre (and maybe pick up some new moss) - but as they say, each to his own. As more and more people turn to nights indoors, what can we do to keep busy?

In a recent survey conducted by YouGov, an Internet-based market research company, the top money saving activity on the rise in Britain is sex. The Scottish are apparently the most amorous, with 43% of all Scots questioned choosing sex over other free activities like window shopping and gossiping. According to the survey, the least interested are those in southern England, who traditionally don't have sex - they just mix good breeding stock, following arrangements made by their parents after finishing school. I think the northern English mostly don't care, as the credit crunch hasn't affected their dole payments yet;

"Whaaaayy!!"

Miss Doncaster 2008

Of course, I jest - we northerners are a proud people who do not disproportionately abuse the benefits system. We abuse it just enough to get by.

I don't think we can believe this story 100% anyway - we have to remember this is an Internet-based survey. On the Internet, people tell lies. I should know, I once posted on a dating site that I was an athletic, bronzed Adonis. I felt bad about misleading people - until my date, the 'stunning, sultry, brunette sex-pot' turned out to be a Turkish bloke called Batuhan. I mean, to his credit, the sex was crazy hot - but I still hope I get a girl next time.

With this in mind, how many people are likely to have told the truth in this survey? I'd say maybe 5% of people are having more sex during the recession - everyone else is probably having quite a lot less, as they can't afford the nights out, drinking and dining required to acquire a casual sex partner. Nor can people afford trips to the brothel, unless the ladies of the night are committed to cutting VAT and base-line interest rates, as outlined by the bank of England. But, to be honest, I don't know if they're that organised.

The point is, if people were honest with themselves - the top activity for saving money during the recession is probably 'filling out Internet surveys' (or reading aimless blog posts). Whatever you write about yourself on the Internet is always exaggerated by at least half, these people who claim to be having more sex are probably just thinking about it more, and wanking.

If the Scots are having more sex though, good on them. It makes sense really - Scotland is bloody cold. Combine this factor with the recession, rising costs of heating bills, and climate change, and there's your reason right there. It's all about self-preservation in the end.

I'll personally stick to my moss collection I reckon. You might think it's weird, but my discovery of a variety of Andreaeaceae in a temperate, wooded area is incredible when you consider they normally favour rocky habitats.

This is why I have to use dating sites :-(

This is a man's world...

Men can apparently do anything - evidently as, joy on joy, the world's first 'pregnant man' is expecting again. As is highlighted in an earlier post, it is a logical paradox for a man to get pregnant - and therefore I'm making a stand here and now against any more coverage of this non-event.

A bearded woman is pregnant, that's all. The publicity-hungry freakshow known as Thomas Beatie must be starved of attention at all costs. I don't think it's unethical, I don't find him morally abhorrant, I don't oppose trans-gender people, nor any woman's right to be pregnant - I just think that Thomas Beatie is a fucking tool.

BBC story here.