Back to the Primordial Soup and Loving It!

There was a young Muslim called Ali,
Who had six Muslim friends, all called Ali.
The group made a pact,
And decided to act,
And blew themselves up in Thames Valley.

Right, a none too controversial start today. No stereotypes or sweeping assumptions of people being made whatsoever. Good, then we can be getting back to normal.

I hate Big Brother. So much so that I always watch the first program to find out what kind of freaks they have in this time, and then promptly hate myself for doing so. But this time around, I rather like it becuase, perhaps unintentionally, they've managed something rather clever.

Just to fill in some background before I explain further, Celebrity Big Brother has been drawn into a racism row because a group of thick, pig-ignorant, talentless munting 'women' have taken a dislike to a beautiful, intelligent, talented Indian actress. And of course racism is the first assumption in our modern politically correct world rather than, ooh let me think, bitchy jealousy.

Anyway, back to the point. Big Brother exists to poke fun at, and make spectacles of, the most stupid parts of society. It is not, as some overpaid, highly-misguided psychologists may claim, an important social experiment. Typically this consists of getting idiots to make idiots of themselves; not a massive challenge. However, this time round, it has managed to poke fun at the idiocy of society as a whole, in fact the whole world! We have UK and Indian diplomats talking of a "worsening diplomatic crisis" over ignorant comments made by people who don't matter on a show that nobody is watching. That Big Brother has managed to cause this much fuss by getting a fat, ugly chav, the stupidest footballer's girlfriend in the world, a dismally failed, manufactured popstar, and the chav's horrendous mother to not like someone much better than them in all respects just shows how stupid the world has become. The biggest irony is that there's no racism in it anyway, ignorance of culture maybe, but not real racism. They're just being mean. We all have to put up with that at some stage in our lives.

The very idea, or at least the modern day interpretation, of racism is racist. I can call a Welshman a sheep-rapist, a Scotsman a tight-fisted Scottish twat, a Frenchman a cheese-eating arms-in-the-air surrender monkey, a German a war-mongering sausage-fiend, and an American an American cunt (a disturbingly popular term in modern day supposedly tolerant British society) and no-one bats an eyelid. However, I can't call an Egyptian a canal-stealing camel-jockey, an Iranian an anti-semitic rag-head, a Nigerian a work-shy slave-descendent, or a Palestinian a terrorist without being banged in irons and called "the worst racist since Hitler" by the Guardian newspaper. My point isn't particularly that we should say these things to people, they're neither nice nor necessary; my point is where do you draw the line? If I can insult a Spaniard but not a Morroccan, isn't that in itself, racist?

Now of course, we have the typical response of effigy-burning as protestors in India take to the streets. Why the fuck do they bother? Don't they have better things to do, like work, or blogging. And why is effigy burning an instant reponse to everything these days. Your religion's being mocked; burn an effigy. An actress you're a fan of is bullied on TV; burn an effigy. What I want to know is, why does no-one look out for the little guy just trying to may their way in life causing minimum fuss and trying to make some small contribution? I don't remember Harvard or Oxbridge coming out and burning effigies of well known idiots when I was bullied for being good at maths at school.

Everything's geared towards protecting the stupid from themselves: "this freshly made coffee may be hot", "nut allergy sufferers should not eat these peanuts", and "going out in the rain may make you wet". We're eliminating natural selection in society and, as such, in danger of eliminating society itself. Useless people are outbreeding the capable; a situation which, if continued, will spell the downfall of civilization far before a bit of Carbon Dioxide will do a damn thing. It's a nice little trick of evolution to prevent a single species becoming over-dominant:

- A species becomes so dominant/widespread/civilised that survival of the fittest is no longer a driving pressure.
- Either the weakest are still so above other species, they have few natural dangers, or there are just so damn many of them that they all breed with minimal competition, or they become so nice and civilised that the strong feel a moral obligation to protect the weak.
- Whatever happens, the pressures that would eliminate the weakest from the gene pool are removed and forward evolution stops. It only takes a small change (political correctness, compensation culture, and the welfare state are excellent examples from everyday experience) to tip the balance of survival towards the weaker members of the population and to push evolution into reverse.

It's a subtle bugger that evolution. But this is a good thing, we wouldn't want to keep evolving. If watching sci-fi has taught me anything it's that highly evolved species are always really fucking boring. They walk around all serene, spirtual, and arrogant. And they've always got huge foreheads! My forehead is big enough already thank you very much; damn receeding hairline. I'll stick to laughing at Jade Goody being an ignorant thug, at people passing out through excitement at Robbie Williams' concerts, and at those who manage to injure themselves with a pillow.

I like the status quo (please note that I said THE status quo, not Status Quo).

Gods and Gays.

Today is a momentous day. 100's of years of strife, hatred, persecution, and murder are coming to an end. The three major old world religions are being reconciled. That's right, after 1500 years of Christians, Jews, and Muslims killing each other in any and every way they could think of, from swords and catapults, through fire and torture, to gas chambers and blowing themselves to pieces, the devout have finally found a mutual figure of hatred they can focus all their murderous energies on. The love thy fellow man brigade and the respecters of all beliefs have stopped killing people who believe a slightly different version of a fairytale and instead have found someone else they can all villify together.

Pufters.

Yes Christians, Jews, and Muslims are gathering outside the House of Lords to protest against new legislation banning "discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality". They claim this legislation "could replace discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation with discrimination on religious grounds" [Ade Omooba, rally organiser] as it would require them "to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong" [Barrister Thomas Cordrey, of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship]. Cordrey described it as "a fundamental matter of freedom of conscience". Now I'm not sure how his conscience makes the decision that the Bible's teaching of (homosexuals = evil) is somehow more conscienable than it's teaching of love thy fellow man, but evidently it has, as has the conscience of a great many believers.

But let's take this to it's logical extreme (always a bad move with religion). The protesters argument is based on being required to do things against their religion's ancient text teachings by law. In this case it's e.g. civil partnership ceremonies must be allowed in churches, or renting guest house double rooms to gay couples. But it doesn't have to be just this example. All religions, whether directly or by implication, say all other religions are wrong; hence the requirement of not witholding goods and services on religious discrimination grounds (the very right they're hiding behind now) also requires them to do something which goes against their moral teachings. Atheists and agnostics also cannot be given or sold anything by the faithful; let's face it, we're even worse than the followers of others religions; so I don't want any more silly little badges of Christ or copies of "How Islam Respects Women" thank you very much.

So to some up, if the believers were really serious about this, no Christian or Jew could ever buy saffron again. And woe betide and Musim with a penchant for bagels (although there probably aren't too many of those).

But this argument is, of course, faceatious. Religion will always find something to fight against because, as humanity's understanding of the world grows, more and more of the tenements of religion crumble; geocentric universe, heresy, creationalism, and now homosexuality. Perhaps we can turn this unusual coming together of minds to our advantage. There are plenty of places where religious tensions are causing the usual turmoil; Iraq being a prime example. Perhaps if we ship a cargo ship's worth of rectal cowboys out there, Bush's crusading Christian warriors and bin Laden's swords of Islam would focus on them for a bit whilst the country attempts to actually rebuild.

Now, it may have come as a shock to some that, after paragraphs of defending gays in the face of religious onslaught, I suddenly come out with the not exactly complementary term, rectal cowboys. Well the reason for this is that bum bandits people piss me off too; specifically the ones who push it (not literally, so far) in your face all the time. Why the hell do we need so many gay pride marches? What have they got to be so damn proud about? Sticking your willy up another man's one-way shit tube does not seem to me to be something most people would stand on a float in a parade in the middle of a large capital city and shout about. Indeed, if you did in any context other than a gay pride event, you'd probably be arrested for gross public indecency. They have so much damn pride, we should be able to use any terms to descride them we like;

ass masters
pillow chewers
lovers of the brown-stained pole

Now lesbians; something that, in principle should be wonderful. But I hate them too. Why? Because they never live up to the promise of my teenage years watching dubious videos from dubious shops. There's always a feminine-ish one, i.e. could just about pass for a woman but you wouldn't cross a crowded bar to introduce yourself kind of level, and a big brutish one who looks like a Russian drill sergeant. Presumably the big one spends most evenings poking a dildo into the other one; makes you wonder why the little one didn't just go out with a fat sweaty bloke in the first place; would've saved the price of a plastic cock.

But I jest, of course. Homosexuality is a natural thing. You get gay pigs, rather demolishing the argument that it's a lifestyle choice. But my being an ugly geek is also a natural thing; I'm just waiting for the legislation that makes it illegal for hot women to withold sex on this basis :-)

Still waiting..........

I'll get back to you.

Seasons greetings

I hate the aftermath of Christmas. The pavements are full of dog shit from all the new dogs kids got for Christmas and don't know how to look after. I've gone from slightly overweight to moderately overweight, hence have to make the same "go to the gym twice a week" New Year resolution I make every year. And I feel guilty because the presents I gave out are shittier than the ones I received; and there's always someone you weren't expecting to giving you a present when you haven't got them anything.

But it's not just the aftermath, it's the 3 months of build-up; 3 months of trees and tinsel in John Lewis; 3 months of "I Wish it Could be Christmas Every Day" pumping out of Woolworths; 3 months of TV adverts for perfume; 3 months of cheap shitty lights in the town centre. By the time Christmas actually comes round, I fucking hate the whole business. And why the fuck do the carols keep going until New Year?!? Surely if there's one thing Boxing Day is good for, it's recovering from Christmas with the luxury of the first day since August without "Jingle Bells" playing somewhere near your alcohol saturated head.

Before you accuse me of being Scrooge, note that I'm not the only one who hates Christmas; there're plenty of examples of people not entering into the compulsory goodwill (this is a prevous Christmas rant of mine I never put on this site; saves me writing a new one ;-)):

"Some town councils have banned Christmas decorations in public areas for fear of offending other religions; mistletoe is to be removed from office Christmas parties to prevent sexual harassment; lights and tree decorations have been deemed unsafe in case they fall on someone’s head, and school-children cannot wear tinsel to their school parties in case they strangle themselves. Crackers are to be withheld for fear of bits from them hitting someone in the eye, and Santas in grottos cannot pick up the children without proper training as they risk back injuries. And of course, these days, the middle-class are all allergic to everything, from wrapping paper, sellotape and ribbons, to Christmas pudding, cranberry sauce and grandma, so they’ve all gone too.

"On top of this, we have the usual array of crappy Christmas goings on; round robin letters; you know, the type where some boring bastard you met once 5 years ago in a pub writes a 6-page letter telling you about every bruised knee and parking fine he’s had in the past 12 months before boasting about his kids university places and the new 4x4 he’s having a great time running over poorer children with, wanker!. Then we have diabolical telly, and carol singers so miserable they make Victor Meldrew look like Santa.

"Speaking of carol singers, new legislation is around the corner that will vastly change the musical scene this year. ‘Birthday of a King’ has gone for fear of offending non-Christians, likewise ‘O Come, all Ye Faithful’, ‘Silent Night, Holy Night’, and ‘The Most Wonderful Day of the Year’. Following a surge of festive-themed ‘adult’ entertainment entering the market in the last couple of months, ‘Sleigh Ride’, ‘I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus’, and ‘Ding Dong! Merrily on High’ have had to be removed from carol services. One leading bishop said “It was becoming impossible, whenever one of these carols was sung, all the male members of the congregation had their hymn-books decidedly lower than is practical for reading and singing up to God”. ‘O Come, All Ye Faithful’ suffered here too.

"‘We Three Kings of Orient Are’ is to be renamed ‘We Three Ordinary Men are from the Orient’ as part of a government drive on literacy, and following complaints from republicans. ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ has been criticised for drawing attention to physical differences of others, ‘White Christmas’ is to be changed to be ‘All Ethnicities Christmas’, and ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem’ has also been stopped after a successful legal challenge by the people of Bethlehem, Albany County, New York, claiming it was damaging their tourist industry by presenting the image of an unexciting backwater town. But we do still have Band Aid (for the God-knows-whatth year in a row!), which, despite complaints from several Muslim groups that they didn’t feel it necessary for them “to know it was Christmas time at all”, has been retained because of its charity links. And fortunately you can now write a living will stating you are not to be resuscitated if you try to take your own life after too much Bob-bloody-Geldof."

Right, that's Christmas well and truly destroyed, back to some new material. You may have seen adverts/public information videos from the Home Office on Tv recently featuring 'decent' people being blase about their new phone/home security etc. to a 'non-decent' looking person; the films then end with a patronising voice saying something like "don't advertise your car/phone/house/etc. to theives". Now, the problem I have with these films is not the patronising level they're pitched at, nor the fact that they've now spilled over into talking (in stupid, celebrity-impersonation voices) parking meters in Sheffield telling you to not leave anything on show in your parked car (although these machines are supremely fucking annoying; we're talking Jade Goody levels here). No, the problem I have is the ridiculously screwed up political correctness that has decided the racial make-up of the adverts. The victims are all ethnic minorities; the perpetrators are all white. This is just fucking bullshit! A massively disproportionate amount of petty (if you can call mugging, burglary, theft from cars petty) crime is commited by young black and asian men; I don't want to hear any shit about more-deprived backgrounds or single-parents, this is a simple statement of fact and it should have been dealt with in these adverts. The racial perspective shown in the Home Office adverts with misleading and, in itself, highly racist. But, as we see repeatedly, politicians don't like letting facts cloud issues they can spin.

Another example, the teaching of Intelligent Design is to be allowed in schools, an education minister said the other day. For anyone who doesn't know, Intelligent Design is the rebranded name for the defunct theory of Creationalism. For now this 'theory' (we'll come onto the inverted commas point in a second) of the origins of life is to be confined to religious studies, rather than science as the potty religious-lobby were pushing for; but I suspect it will creep over. For starters, to call intelligent design a 'theory' is intensely misleading. If I'm feeling generous, it is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory; consider:

1) Evolution is a possible (read: probable) explanation of the origins of life. It makes logical sense, can be explained through understood processes, and fits with all the observable evidence; there isn't any proper evidence (religious texts are not evidence) against the theory. But it is still a theory as there is no such thing as scientific fact.

2) Intelligent Design is an idea, based on the word of ancient books of unknown origin and authorship, and a complete misunderstanding of complexity theory, that fits with absolutely none of the available evidence. The only 'evidence' (besides the texts) the intelligent designers can come up with is "the structure of the DNA molecule is too complex to have occured naturally". This is a fundamental mistake. Modern complexity theory has shown that incredibly complex behaviours can emerge from extremely simple initial systems given small random initial perturbations. The Creationalists don't understand (and have probably never heard of) complexity theory and hence have no right to be dictating what we teach our children as to the origins of life. To put it in statisticians words: Intelligent Deisgn is an hypothesis with a miniscule 99% confidence region which does not encompass the observables, but they wouldn't understand that either. Hence a more accurate description would be superstitious bullshit.

We mustn't allow religion to regain any of the power over society that our ancestors worked so hard to wrestle from it. This way another Dark Age lies. But it's worse than the Intelligent Design story may suggest. It is now looking extremely likely that vital Stem Cell-based research will be stopped due to religious groups pressurising the government. They claim it's unethical and immoral, but refuse to answer why suspending research that may alleviate suffering and save lives isn't also immoral and unethical. Again, they've no knowledge about the science behind the issue. The irony is that they're also being so arrogant as to assume they know what God thinks is immoral. Perhaps God wants us to do this research to help ourselves. If not, why do we have the ideas and the capability to do so? Presumably he gave them to us.

This irony in their thinking was well illustrated by a cartoon I saw recently. A man falls overboard at sea, a jet ski comes past and offers to take him to safety, he says "No thanks, my God will save me". A lifeboat and a helicopter both pass, again offering aid; both of whom he tells "No thanks, my God will save me". When the drowned man meets St Peter (Paul? How should I know, I went to a religious junior schoool ;-)) at the pearly gates he says "Why did God not save me?", to which the saint replies "He sent a jet ski, a lifeboat, and a helicopter; what else was he supposed to do?".

But it's not just science they want to supress. It's anything that criticises their beliefs, be it cartoons, operas, or Monthy Python's Life of Brian. There was a fascinating program on the making of the film and the struggle with Mary Whitehouse and her band of loonies to get it released. The irony here was that the barmy army didn't watch it; they decided what was in it and called for a ban anyway. The way they always do. Religious groups are full of people who need to be told what to think. The film didn't even mock Christ as they claimed, it was all about organised religon. The Pythons tried to claim that their reason for not really targetting the life of Christ was that "He's really not funny". Only John Cleese stood up to this and made the (entirely valid) point, that actually the life of Christ is ripe for comedy. He put forward the case of Joseph finding out Mary was pregnent, Mary explaining to him what had happened, him falling (erm, believing, sorry) it, then telling all his mates down the tavern that it's ok, his wife hasn't been knocking about with the neighbour, she got knocked up by God. Comedy gold in the hands of a better writer than me.

Incidentally, wasn't Mary about 14 at the time of conception? So God is a paedophile? Explains a lot about the lifestyles of modern-day priests and bishops, I suppose. Speaking of which, the funniest story of the festive season has to be the Bishop of Southwark being found drunk in the back of a BMW he'd broken into, throwing childrens's toys about and saying "I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what I do"! Priceless!!

So, what can we conclude? By the way, for the religiously hard-of-thinking, a conclusion is a suggested explanation based on the observed facts that fits the measured data. Religion has given us:

1) Scientific censorship on anything they decide God wouldn't like.
2) Artisitic censorship on anything they don't like.
3) Lots of kiddy fiddlers.
4) Dog shit all over the pavement in January.

Sounds like a bad thing to me, I won't be converting.

Put up, shut up, fuck off, or die.

How many oxymorons (technically oxymora) can you think of? Note that an oxymoron is not someone who holds their breath for 10 minutes for a dare, but is what might otherwise be known as a contradiction in terms, but an intentional one. Try "Microsoft Works", "military intelligence", "government organisation", or a "deafening silence" as examples. Here's another one: "faith schools".

Now school is somewhere kids go to learn, to be educated in the vast quantities of knowledge mankind has acquired over milenia of hard study and thought. Faith is precisely the opposite, resorting to the explanantion of an all-powerful being doing it all for you that saves you the trouble of solving some tricky problem you can't be bothered with. And the latter has no place in the former. Faith promotes the idea that nothing matters, that everything is predetermined, that God will look after you come what may, and that you don't need to do anything because it's all in the hands of God. Now this may have been fine in the Middle Ages when it wasn't possible to live doing nothing but, now we have the benefits system and internet supermarket shopping, it is possible to live doing absolutely fuck all. This is not a good idea to give to our kids.

And another thing; IT'S ALL BALONEY! Can you imagine the outcry if science lessons were teaching children that the Earth was flat, or made of tandoori chicken?!? If geography was teaching that the capital of France was F! Or English was teaching grammar?!? There'd be a public uproar the likes of which the Daily Mail can only dream of. So why should religion be allowed to teach things that are not true with impunity? And to all those who claim it is true, I want to see evidence (N.B - your faith is NOT evidence); I wish to quote a friend of mine to make the point:

Put up, shut up, fuck off, or die.

Right, another thing that there is no evidence of; man-made global warming (MMGW). Now I know I've covered this recently, but it has suddenly become extremely important with the announcement of "green taxes" on fuel, cheap flights, non-energy saving lightbulbs, and rubbish collection. Now, first let's consider these taxes;

1) fuel - 75% of what we already pay for fuel is tax. That means fuel tax is 300%!!!
2) cheap flights - Often as much as 95% of the prices of these is already tax (anyone tried to fly to Malaga for 1 Euro?). The tax can be 1000's%!
3) non-energy saving lightbulbs - We already have VAT, thank you, on teh bulbs and the electricity.
4) rubbish collection - we pay vehicle excise, fuel duty, and fuel VAT to get to the (out-of-town as all our local businesses have been taxed out of existence) shop; then we pay VAT on the products; then we pay council tax for, wait for it, rubbish collection; now we're gonna have to pay for how much we throw out?!? 6 taxes on one thing!! We don't even have a say in packaging, it's all the supermarkets!! What the fuck are we supposed to do about it?

These green taxes are, and this is important, just a revenue raising exercise, nothing more! Britain produces ~5% of global CO2 emissions. If everyone in Britain stopped driving today, any net saving on emissions would be defunct by 90 days of China not changing their rate on increase. And most of our emissions come from industry anyway.

These green taxes are based on a report by Nicholas Stern, a respected economist, that says climate change could (note, could) reduce the global economy by 20%. Hence we have to tax people into changing their habits. His scientific consultants were, conspiracy theory alert, government science advisors, hardly impartial on the field of tax, one might think; suspicious. But as usual, it hasn't been thought out; if you price everyone off the roads, you'll wreck our economy anyway. Great plan guys!

One of the goverment's stated aims is to have 5% of cars in Britain on biofuel in a few years. But when a load of people set their diesel cars to run on recycled chip fat, what did Gordon 'piggy-bank' Brown do? He put a tax on recycled chip fat resale. And threatened to seize the cars for non-payment. Please, please, please, do not vote for this man!!!!!!

MMGW has all been one big ruse to make these long-planned green-taxes socially acceptable to the masses; and they've fallen for it hook, line, sinker, waders, bait, silly hat, bucket, Volvo, net, and copy of Angling Times. All so the goverment can say "these taxes will save the world". Fucking bollocks, the lot of it. Blair recently said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous. This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime. Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well. For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now." Does anyone even remotely believe this isn't scaremongering to justify the taxes? And if you do you're so stupid I now call for you to be struck from the electoral register to save my country. Voting for a party that acts like this (includes the Tories and Lib Dems) is tantamount to treason; it is a vote for the destruction of our country's competitiveness.

Despite what the greenies may tell us, this is far from the scientific concensus anyway. 18000 scientists worldwide refused to endrose Kyoto, citing being highly sceptical that it had any merit as their reason. A professor of climatetology at MIT, i.e. not the sort of person we should just be ignoring on this issue, recently said MMGW was a defunct theory! But do we about hear this, oh no. Instead, the wonderfully relevant opinions of the Prince of Wales and Al Gore hit the headlines. Did anyone see "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore's arrogantly-titled film on MMGW? I saw a poster with the tag-line "Now is not the time to be converted, now is the time to convert others". CONVERT?!? Didn't I say in another post this whole thing was a fucking religion? Gore can fuck right off, I'll stick on the MIT climateologist's side thank you very much; I don't need your goddamn conversion, you twat. MMGW proponents let's see your evidence, stop just telling us "the evidence is overwhelming"; this is just another faith argument and has no place making vital political and economic decisions for us.

Put up, shut up, fuck off, or die.

Billy Bragg. God this guy is a complete cock. A rotten musician and self-proclaimed socialist and voice for the common man who now lives in a 4 million bedroom house in Dorset. Very fucking socialist. He has just written a new book "The Progressive Patriot". AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!! The arrogance of that title. He claims to be a patriot, but every time you see him on tv he's berating this country. Progressive?!? He's the only person older than 17 who still believes in Communism!

Put up, shut up, fuck off, AND die.

Right, I've run out of steam. I've put up my arguments, I'm now to shut up, soon I will fuck off home, and when the green lobby finds out where I live, I will die.

Dave.
Put up, shut up, fucked off, and died.

Ways to deal with a bike thief

This is not just a busty brunette spreading her legs on the kitchen table, this is Kelly Brook spreading her legs on the kitchen table. This is not just two lesbians having oral fun, this is Eva Longoria and Halle Berry having oral fun. This is not just a voyeur stripping video of a blonde woman, this is a voyeur stripping video of Scarlett Johansson. This is not just porn, this is M&S porn.

That's right, good morning everyone; it's time for another tirade of the random bullshit that passes for my blog. Firstly, some mother-fucking cunt has stolen my fucking bike!! And do you know what I'm going to do about it? Fuck all! And do you know why I'm going to do fuck all? Because fuck all is all I can do. Let's look at the options I have available to me:

1) Do nothing - requires no effort and gets me nothing in return.
2) Report it to the police - requires effort and gets me nothing in return as they'll write it down (maybe) and say "oh, well, there's not much we can do about that, sir"; assuming the police still call people "sir".
3) Go and steal the bike back - requires a ridicuolous amount of effort, and is highly unlikely to be successful.
4) Hang around my street at night (this was the second crime to affect my household in 3 days, the other was a broken into car) until the same little scum-bag comes back and beat seven shades of shit out of him with a 2x4 - requires minimal effort and would be extremely rewarding, but will get me locked up as the criminal in all this "becuase his human rights are important".

Hence why I'm taking the do fuck all option. My only hope now is to read in the local paper that a little scroat has been killed under a car whilst riding a bike with a dodgy back brake. That would genuinely make my day. Does that sound harsh? Fucking right it's harsh and no less than he deserves. I'm sure all the politically correct brigade will be out saying "oh, he only took a bike"; no, he didn't ONLY take a bike, he took a bike, only doesn't enter into it. If this is how he chooses to behave, evidentally he is of no value to society and should be killed.

Where's this all leading you may ask (in case that last sentence wasn't clear). BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. And not just for "serious" crimes, for any premeditated crime. Make no mistake, this toe-rag took the concious decision to break into my flatmate's car, and to steal my bike (or 2 people did, if they weren't the same 'person'); this is not the sort of thing one does by accident. It's surprisingly easy NOT to steal something or NOT to break into cars or NOT to rape someone; I'm sorry, but if you choose to do one of these things then end of the rope for you, mate, and good riddance.

Counter argument: "A civilised society doesn't behave like that"
Retort: "In a civilised society people don't steal, rape, or murder; hence we don't live in a civilised society."

A civilised society is a middle class illusion, a proportion of people will always be scum; humanity is a spectrum. Decent people are at war with the scum of the earth. And it's a war we could win if we weren't so fucking wet about "human rights". Why is it the state has to prove guilt to convict someone, but said someone doesn't have to prove themselves suitably human to qualify for human rights protection? Admittedly I may have drifted slightly beyond bike theft now and into the realms of drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. Being human should not be a right of being born a chimp with no hair, you should have to earn it. Behave like an animal and we can put you down like one.

Whilst we're on crime and punishment, there's just been a case in Sheffield of a guy being given life following a crash which killed his girlfriend, which he didn't report to an ambulance crew in time to save her and occurred whilst he was banned. Life sounds fair? Yeah, probably, this wasn't exactly premeditated. But read down the story and it says he must serve a minimum of, wait for it, four and a half years. For fucks sake, the only person who has a shorter "life" than that is the person he killed by not calling an ambulance.

And another thing. A prison has just been criticised by inspectors (prison inspectors? What the fuck do we need them for??) for being vermin-infested and because there are accusations of "institutional disrespect" of inmates. Institutional disrespect?!? It's not fucking Butlins! These people are there to be punished for crimes, not to be comfortably housed at taxpayers expense to keep unemployment figures down. Let them live in their own shit and eat each other to survive, then maybe they wouldn't be quite so blase about re-offending and going back once they get out.

Another thing that pisses me off is people being selfish and rude. People who don't hold a door open, or thank you when you do; people who don't say thank you, or even acknowledge your efforts when you go out of your way to help them; old people in motorised buggies who think they own the pavements and supermarket aisles (you've got four wheels and a motor, get in the fucking road!), parents with pushchairs who behave the same; people who are employed to do a job to help you (i.e. administrators) who delegate what they're supposed to be doing (and a load of other stuff they've just invented) back to you, then talk to you like they're doing you a favour; people who have firework displays at 1 in the morning, it's been dark for 5 hours you twat, why now?!? trick-or-treaters who think you OWE them something; telephone sellers who ask you why you don't want the thing they're insisting on telling you about that you didn't ask for; anyone who doesn't pick up their dog's crap; people who get in the supermarket queue then fuck off to look for the 5-10 things they didn't get whilst actually in the fucking shop; couples doing this where one goes through the till with the shopping whilst the other repeatedly tells the cashier "she'll be back in a minute"; people who steal bikes.

Right, that's it. I've come full circle so it's time to stop. It's been several hours since something went wrong so I'm sure something will happen to make me blog again soon. I'll leave you with this thought....

When driving, if a moving queue of traffic is preventing you turning somewhere, why is it always the last person in the queue who gives way?

Joke of the Day: 20th September 2006

Question: What do Indian Christians sing round campfires?

Answer: Mumbai-ya.

Please God don't let any Managers or Environmentalists Immigrate to my Country!

I saw an advert on TV yesterday which left me rather bemused. I can only assume the idea came up at some stupid management meeting; loads of people "skilled" in the art of working out what "everyday" people's "purchasing criteria" were decided to be "pro-active", "touched base" together, "brainstormed", and came up with a "top-down", "user-centred", "outside of the box" idea that "ticked all the right boxes". They recognised that for a "retail-phenomenon" to have maximum "impact" and to be "taken to the next level" required it to be practical and useful and that aesthetic appeal was important. So they "threw all their ideas into the wok and saw if they got a stir-fry", "ran them up the flag-pole and saw if anyone saluted", and "nailed them to a wall and saw if anyone developed a religious belief about them" (I made that one up).

And they came up with slightly-scented tampons. Now why, in the name of all that is holey (pun intended, hence the spelling), would anyone want slightly-scented tampons? I can think of only 2 reasons, and they should both be illegal (I believe one of them is in Watford).

Hm, starting on management speak; talk about a soft target, I'm getting really lazy at this blogging lark. Let's try something else: Immigration. There are many ideas on immigration from shutting the borders, through only letting in highly qualified people, to letting everyone man Jack and his mother-in-law in. Britain has one of the highest rates of immigration per head of population in the world (disclaimer: this figure is a guess and any resemblence to true data is purely coincidental) from all over the world, and yet we still can't win any sporting events!

Think about it, we're swamped with people from the commonwealth, yet all those countries seem to kick our arses at cricket. African imigrants are here en-masse yet we never win long distance running (ignoring Paula Radcliffe who is, let's face it, not exactly sub-Saharan). There're now thousands of Eastern Europeans, and yet we can't win any of the throwing events at the olympics. And now the damn Chinese are threatening to take over the snooker!! We can't even win the curling!!! We should be targetting people who can play sport and then only let them in.

Brazilians to play football and beach volleyballs for us.
Aussies for cricket.
Kiwis for rugby.
Any Americans (with their coaches and "medicine packs").
Canadians for ice hockey.

Now for something that really fucks me right off: Man-Made Global Warming (MMGW). You know all about it, it's the religion of the 21st century (sorry Islam). Despite the fact that it doesn't stand up to the simplest of scientific tests (proof to follow), it's been taken as fact by almost everyone; mostly because they're too fucking stupid to understand that the mass-media, who provide all their "sciency-information", know fuck-all about science and disproving stuff. Right, by now I've probably attracted the (environ)mentalist's version of an inquisition or a fatwa; probably involves feeding me nothing but organic carrots for five years (rectally), or some such. For anyone who hasn't devloped a frenzied hatred of me for having a differing point-of-view, here's my evidence (something the other side have nothing of) that MMGW is a load of balls:

1) Over the last 100 years, man-made carbon emissions have increased monotonously (I don't know if it's linear, quadratic, exponential, or wobbly and frankly I don't really give a fuck; it's going up).

2) Average global temperature (contrary to newspaper/BBC/Reuters etc. headlines) has not monotonously increased in the same period (source: Scientific American). It increased gradually from 1900-1970, then dropped back to almost 1920's levels by 1975, and has increased ~linearly since (still well below 1960). So the "hottest July day on record" in Britain this year may have been true in Gatwick, but wasn't for ANYWHERE else. Oh, and it wasn't the hottest day on record as some reporters claimed; there was a hotter day in August 2003 and a whole hotter week in August 1983, plus several other examples I can't be arsed to list.

3) Since 1975 (the only period for which accurate measurements are available), solar output has increased linearly (by ~0.05% per year: source NASA).

Now, it is normal scientific practice that, if your theory (MMGW) doesn't fit the data (average global temperatures) that should support it, then your theory is what we scientists call F-U-K-T fucked (yes, I've nicked that from a film; cup of tea to the first successful answer); or, amongst more diplomatic circles "in need of ammendment". But this is not the mentalists's approach, they prefer 'if the data doesn't fit, ignore it'; and they have the fucking cheek to call themselves environmental SCIENCE.

But don't take my word for it, there's a new space mission been/being (can't remember) launched to study solar output and compare the results with average global temperatures. It's called STEREO. Ever heard of it? No? Neither have most people. Despite the fact that this mission could go a long way to determining if global temperature variations (I refuse to call it warming when we're talking about fluctuations over periods of a few decades max.) are due to the Sun (which outputs more energy in 1 second than we use in 1 year, approximately), or the actions of a few hairless apes, all of whom could fit on the Isle of Wight, hardly anyone knows about it. Such is the hold the MMGW lobby have over the media. With the amount of money being spent and promised to be spent on tackling the causes of MMGW, I really believe that STEREO should have been the big news of the last few months. But no, 1 editorial in the Times is all I've seen in the mass-media, and some announcements on the net.

Anyone who thinks of themselves as intelligent and/or someone who likes to base their opinions on all the evidence really should remain highly sceptical of MMGW until the results of this mission are in. But my hunch is that you'll never hear about them, because they'll probably conflict with MMGW, so they'll be ignored or discredited by everyone who makes their name giving soundbites to the press about dire man-made consequences to come. Ah, look at me, predicting the results before they're in; I'm as bad as the mentalists. Or maybe not, I'll change my mind if the data is convincing.

Right, been a bit serious today. Next time, more on the comic stupidity of mankind (well, the previous discussion could fall into this category, but wasn't exactly laugh out loud).