Modern Martyrs

In the Times today I read that Europe is confronting a demographic time bomb from an ageing population. link

Meanwhile, in England a smoking ban in public places will be introduced in a weeks time, meaning that all those smokers who pour money into the public purse, selflessly throwing down their lives before they become a drain on public pensions, only taking back a small fraction of what they've paid in to ease them through their inevitable painful death, will be cast out from public places and treated as pariahs, scorned, mocked, and abused.

How will future generations look upon smokers? Will they be bizarre and reviled figures, like witchdoctors or medieval torturers? Or will they be looked upon as misunderstood martyrs, selflessly throwing down their lives for the good of the majority? More pertinently, why is the government so keen to throw away such a huge tax revenue only in return for an even greater tax burden?

Where Tunnels Lead

Click on the cartoon to see it bigger.

Proof of Intelligent Design

Boy Kills 1000lb Mouse!

Wow! Look at the size of that thing. Unbelievable!

Wow! You really killed THAT?

This photo of an (allegedly) 1000lb+ pig killed by an 11 year old has been doing the Internet rounds.

Hey kid, you can come closer. That pig's dead. It's not going to hurt you. There's no need to stand twenty feet behind it.

What is it about hunters that they're so terrified of dead animals they have to pose several yards behind them? Makes you wonder how they managed to get close enough to an actual living animal to kill it.

Probably they just found the dead bodies lying around.

The Seven Ages of Rock, Beginning With Adolescence

In the new BBC documentary The Seven Ages of Rock, which I watched last night until the film on the other side started, the story of rock begins in 1966 with Jimi Hendrix arriving in London. He has to go to London because Rock 'n' Roll never happened in America - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Gene Vincent, Dick Dale … none have existed in the BBC’s parallel universe in which rock is an entirely British phenomenon until Hendrix, the first rock icon, arrives. Little Richard only earns a passing reference on account of influencing Hendrix’s showmanship. Footage of Dylan is shown on account that his rough singing style inspired Hendrix to sing. We see The Who smashing guitars, which inspired Hendrix to smash guitars. Early film of the Rolling Stones is shown to highlight the influence of the blues on Hendrix. The programme makers seem to think that if the word ‘blues’ is mentioned enough times (along with grainy footage of Muddy Waters) it will give the programme an air of historical authenticity so the audience won’t notice the complete omission of the actual birth of rock in 1950s America.

I don’t like to speculate on the motives for this shameless rewriting of history. Maybe the BBC thought the 1950s was just too square for an audience which will largely have no memories of that period. Or perhaps the they just felt spending time on Elvis would be going over old ground and that a new angle was required. I sort of agree but if you’re making a documentary of something you can’t just omit the major figures and expect it to be taken seriously. Will we next see a BBC History of World War 2 starting in 1941 with no mention of Churchill and Hitler? There’s no possibility of course that the ‘hideously white’ BBC might have passed over Elvis and The (also omitted) Beatles in favour of a black artist for politically correct purposes.

All in all this was a terrible documentary, poorly conceived, contrived, confused, and for the most part utterly dull, padded out with aging ex-rock-stars talking reverently about Hendrix’s guitar playing to convince us of his god-like seminal status.

This was supposed to be about the birth of rock not a tribute to Hendrix’s virtuosity. There was no attempt to introduce or define the subject (possibly giving justification for devoting the first episode to Hendrix) let alone put it in historical perspective. Why seven ages beyond it making a snappy title? What makes Britpop and The Velvet Underground rock but not surf-rock or rock ‘n’ roll? Devoid of any attempt to engage the viewer with an actual narrative about the birth of rock music and its cultural impact The Seven Ages of Rock was left reliant on archive musical footage to sustain interest. And the footage merely emphasised that rock music of the 60s is already a form well developed and moving in new directions. This is not the birth of rock but the onset of adolescence.

If you’re wondering what that makes rock music of today I’d say we’re on about the third reanimation of the corpse.

The BBC can kiss the sky for my license fee. It’s at the stage I’d rather go to prison than pay for this sort of propaganda, which seems to be making up an increasing amount of the BBC’s output.

Still they did reply to my letter, although without answering my question at all.

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your e mail regarding 'Seven Ages of Rock'. 

I understand that you are disappointed that Elvis will not feature in the

journey through the history of rock music.

Please be assured that I will certainly register your dissatisfaction on the

daily audience log.  This internal document will be made available to the 'Seven

Ages of Rock' production team and senior BBC management.

Feedback of this nature helps us when making decisions about future BBC

programmes and services and your comment will play a part in this process.

Your interest in the BBC is appreciated, thank you for taking the time to

contact us. 

Regards

(name omitted) 

BBC Information

If You Remember The 50s You Weren't There - BBC Rewrites History

I noticed today that the BBC are screening a grand history of rock, entitled The Seven Ages Of Rock, starting this Saturday. I was somewhat confused to learn that the birth of rock music came sometime around 1966 with Jimi Hendrix as its first icon, having previously believed in some earlier character named Elvis, who it appears wasn't a rock icon at all, if he even existed.

So I wrote this email to the BBC to ask them what happened to Elvis.

"I would like to know why the seven ages of rock claims that the birth of rock is in the 1960s with Hendrix as it's first icon when everyone knows it began in the 1950s with Elvis as its first icon.

I had initially thought that the series was focused on heavy rock but with artists like Roxy Music, The Velvet Underground, and The Smiths featured this is obviously not the case."

If I get a response I'll post it.

Help for Religious Believers In Countering Richard Dawkins’ Arguments

I’ve noticed a brigade of commentators attacking Richard Dawkins lately and have been impressed by the depth of argument and amount of painstaking research they have used in deconstructing his personality. The upshot of this flurry of religious debate seems to be that Dawkins is somewhat rude and generally unpleasant.

Although I’m an atheist it saddens me to see such a low intellectual level of discussion. As a philosophy student I very much enjoyed debate about the existence of God and it is depressing to witness people droning out the tired mantra that atheism is a faith based position and that, hey, there is no actual evidence that God doesn’t exist either! Dawkins has covered these arguments, as have many before him. They are tired, weak, and uninteresting. They are the equivalent of atheists trotting out the fairly feeble problem-of-evil argument, which, to his credit, Dawkins has not done as far as I’m aware.

To be honest I haven’t actually read The God Delusion and while that doesn’t appear to be any stumbling block to criticising Dawkins’ personality effectively - and seeing it appear in major publications - here are some handy pointers to rebutting some of the actual arguments which I encountered watching The Root Of All Evil and reading The Blind Watchmaker.

The existence of God is a scientific proposition.

I don’t see how this is the case. Even if one were to construct a scientific test for determining the existence of God, He, being all powerful could alter the evidence or the mind of the experimenter if He chose to. Why would He wish to do so? To stay in the background, so that we may come to Him freely. The concept of free-will is quite important to theologians and philosophers so it’s a handy concept to bring up whenever you’re losing an argument with an atheist like Dawkins.

There is no evidence for the existence of God.

As we’ve seen if God wanted us to come to Him freely He would not want to give incontrovertible proof of His existence. There is some evidence that the Universe has been “fine-tuned” for life to evolve. Dawkins dismisses this evidence with appeal to the idea of parallel universes. However, until a scientific test for parallel universes is devised (which may not be far off) they are as much a faith based belief as God. In relation to fine-tuning a stronger counter position than Dawkins’ is put forward here.

Note that pointing out there is no evidence that God does not exist is not in itself particularly interesting. Dawkins will merely point out that there is no evidence that a flying teapot isn’t spinning round the sun. You could however build on this line of argumentation by pointing out that a flying teapot doesn’t actually explain any phenomena whereas God does, namely the existence of the Universe. However Dawkins will probably go on to the following.

The Complexity of life and the Universe can be entirely explained by simple scientific laws.

See fine-tuning answer above. Read up on the mind-body problem.

An intelligent creator of sufficient complexity to create the Universe would also require an intelligent creator of sufficient complexity to create the creator who would also require an intelligent creator and so on.

Not necessarily. Dawkins is assuming that materialism is correct or that mind arises from material processes. Again read up on the mind-body problem.

Indoctrinating children and defining them by religious beliefs of their parents is wrong .

Dawkins of course contradicts himself here. If indoctrinating children with religion is effective then surely they can be defined by that religion. If indoctrination isn’t effective what can he complain about?

We Should Rename Atheists As ‘Brights’

Note that Dawkins is most likely being facetious here therefore a witty rather than well reasoned response is required to prevent you seeming like the boring stiff you most probably are.

I hope these points are of use when arguing with atheists like Dawkins, helping to prevent you coming across as the irrational, "faithhead" he accuses you of being. Then when you attack him for being rude and arrogant you will actually have a point.

It’s Not So Much Kicking a Corpse as Protesting About the Smell

I see the nominees for the Turner Prize have been announced.

I’m ashamed to admit that I do still take an interest in The Turner Prize. It holds a strange and morbid fascination similar to that of the rancid smell between my toes (which I'll be entering next year). But the entries are very boring and uncontroversial these days, utterly devoid of the cartoon vulgarity of previous entries. There’s even hoary old stuff like photography! Philistines. The best headline grabber they can muster this year is a protest at the Iraq war. And all the guy’s done is put up a few banners. Yawn. You’d think he might have been able to muster a few mutilated babies swimming in faeces eating their parents blown off limbs or something similar in keeping with classic Turner Prize entries. Tasteless this may be but when an artist deals with a topic such as the Iraq War I’d much rather be shocked, horrified, appalled ... overwhelmed by something other than indifference.



'Could you protest outside please Sir. This is the space for the rancid-toe-smell.'

Summertime - And Still My Hatred Knows No Bounds

Summertime. Clear blue skies. Birds singing. The warmth of sunshine on your face and arms. A tantalising aroma of barbecued food wafting across the lush green grass of the local park. But there’s something not quite right. Something missing. Just one extra ingredient to make it perfect.

Hey! I’ve got it. How about some droning jungle drums. That will really enhance the summery atmosphere.

What is it about parks and sunshine that makes people lose all sense of musical appreciation and insist upon drumming out inanely monotonous rhythms for hours on end? It’s not that I’ve anything against bongos per se; they sound pretty good as an accompaniment. But as a solo instrument they’re somewhat lacking on account of their inability to produce more than one note let alone a melody or harmony. I’ve nothing against music in public either. The sound of a guitar, or violin, say, played competently would almost certainly enhance a lazy afternoon spent in the park. But bongos merely produce an ominous drone (I mean, are these crusty twats deliberately trying to recreate the atmosphere of cannibal ridden rain-forests?) Of course, it takes talent and years of practice to play a real instrument competently whereas it only takes dreadlocks and the inability to wash and shave properly to play the bongos.

The only reason they get away with it is because so many non-crusty idiots for some reason think the instruments of African bushmen are somehow purer and more in touch with the earth and will therefore stop global warming and other vacuous nonsense.

Apple Campaign Inspires Advertisers To New Creative Levels

First Ever Winner of the Webosphere

Congratulations goes out to the first ever WINNER OF THE WEBOSPHERE. This prestigious award goes to Tessa Jowell for writing this stupendously inane pile of wishy-washy-feely tripe in hte grauniad.

"The internet is a vigorous and now invaluable part of the public realm, or what I prefer to call "ourspace". Ourspace, whether physical or virtual, includes those places and spaces where people meet as equals; where public engagement and debate takes place."

"Ourspace is part of the "commons" of the UK and something that goes much wider than just the state to include, for example, public service broadcasting; the arts, culture and sports; parks and other public open spaces; and of course the internet - in short, spaces where all feel welcome to participate, to enjoy themselves and to learn."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tessa_jowell/2007/05/civility_in_ourspace.html

Piss off you stupid cow. Until blogger bans me for bad language I'll post whatever I like, and if I get banned from blogger I'll post it on my own website. If you don't like it don't read it. Arsehole. If bloggers come up with their own informal code that's fair enough but leave out all this insidious 'ourspace' shite when what you really mean is censorship. Wish I had more time to write more but have to go out.

Life's Mysteries

There are a host of things that will likely go forever unexplained: ufos, stonehenge, how the pyramids were built, the nature of mind, and how on earth My Space has become one of the most popular sites on the Internet.

I've just created a profile for a new musical project I'm working on. Actually I created two profiles since there was nothing to indicate that band profiles had a different sign up process. Having created my profile I now want to edit the look and feel of it. I'm presented with a hideous, complicated looking interface. First I check my inbox which has a new message from my 'friend' Tom. He welcomes me to My Space, etc, the message ends with:

"P.S. One thing I can't help you with is HTML/decorating your profile; sorry!"

Which rather frustratingly is the exact thing I need help with. After much searching I find a 'help' page and browse to the following advice:

"How do I add color, graphics, & sound to my Profile page?

Adding color, graphics, and sound to your profile page is easy and requires only a basic knowledge of HTML (the programming language used to create web pages on the Internet). Simply go to "Edit Profile" and enter the desired HTML coding where appropriate.If you do not know HTML, you can reach out and make a new friend by asking someone who has color, graphics, and/or sound on their Profile page how they did it. People on MySpace are friendly and always willing to help, so just ask! This is a great way to meet new people!"

Easy? I'm a Postgrad in IT with a fair amount of experience in making websites and a pretty good knowledge of HTML and I would never have figured it out. There doesn't seem to be any suitable places to enter/edit the HTML/CSS. In blogger I can see the entire HTML for the page and edit it pretty freely. Nothing like that in MySpace. I asked a friend who informed me to enter it into the band details boxes. Done that, got the page the colour I want but half the page has disappeared and the profile editing interface has gone all to pot. What a load of crap.

Job Interviews

So you’re sitting nervously on the big sofa in waiting room, not getting too comfortable in case you appear slovenly when the interviewer greets you (that first impression being so important and all), making sure you don’t fidget in case they’re watching you on CCTV. You’ve refused a cup of coffee in case you spill it over your cleanly pressed white shirt or choke and spray it all over the interviewer or commit some other mishap that is absolutely bound to occur in an interview. After a tense fifteen minute wait the interviewer comes to greet you – strong eye contact, a firm (but not too firm), handshake with rehearsed greeting, then led into the interview room. You cautiously stand until the interviewer asks you to sit so as not to appear forthright. Once seated and with pleasantries about the weather, building, finding the place etc. out of the way the interview begins.

‘So! Tell us a little bit about yourself.’

‘Huh? Didn’t you get the CV I sent? Or the fourteen page application form I spent an entire evening completing? Look, they’re on the desk in front of you. Didn’t you read what I wrote before the interview? Did I spend hours compiling the tedious details of my life only to have to repeat the same information in the interview? Will you be wanting a transcript of the interview as well?

‘I mean, suppose before the interview, you gave me a brochure entitled, ‘About Smith & Esquire’, or whatever your stupid company is called, to read while waiting, and then, in the interview when you say if I’ve got any questions, the first thing I ask is, ‘So! Could you tell me a little bit about the company?’ How much of a moron would you think I was? Probably less than I am for continuing to pretend that I want to work for your crap company.’

Good News - Inciting Violence Against EU Diplomats is Lawful

I read today that the EU is planning to criminalize holocaust denial:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html

According to the article, “The latest draft, seen by the Financial Times, will make it mandatory for all Union member states to punish public incitement “to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.”

Obviously if inciting violence or hatred were illegal in general there would be no need for this law. It follows then that it’s lawful to incite violence or hatred against persons or members of a group not defined by race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. As EU diplomats are not defined by these traits I encourage the use of extreme violence against them and will also be inciting as much hatred against them as I can the moment I’ve figured out exactly what inciting hatred entails and where the boundaries are.

Is Web 2.0 the Precursor to a New Dark Ages?

Can there possibly be anything more annoying than the term Web 2.0? If it was just Web 2 that would be bad enough but it’s that ‘.0’, as if there’s a team of programmers currently working towards the release of Web 2.1, that makes me want to nuke silicon valley. How is it possible to be such a wanker that you think this is a cool name?

There is no such thing as Web 2.0. You don’t type www2.0.whatever.com in your browser. There is only the World Wide Web, a thing that has been constantly evolving with new technologies since its inception. They didn’t talk of Road 2.0 when they invented the automobile, or Ship 2.0 when they ditched sails for steam power. Or maybe some did and rightfully were permanently silenced, which is why we’ve never heard of it. If so we’re definitely sliding towards a new dark ages allowing their modern counterparts to go unpunished.

Nobody really knows what Web 2.0 is meant to refer to exactly, but it’s apparently something to do with interactivity and user generated content; You Tube and My Space being prominent examples. The fact that ebay and countless chat forums had been around long before anyone coined the phrase Web 2.0 seems to have escaped those who seem to think we’re undergoing some spectacular collective leap in human consciousness. Basically Web 2.0 means your web page content is at the mercy of anyone with a pc and internet access who isn’t capable of making their own website, and no matter how bad you think that sounds in theory the reality is infinitely worse. Think of all the things you love about your favourite movies, (probably themselves Hollywood dross); story, cinematography, acting, soundtrack, special effects, character development etc., then imagine a five minute film with none of these qualities whatsoever. Imagine a hundred such films being posted to the internet every second of every day and you have the bottomless pit of banality that is YouTube.

On the bright side, at least the infrastructure of the internet means this stuff isn’t for the most part being broadcast throughout the galaxy. Any alien civilisation that received it would be practically compelled to exterminate the human race.

Now check out this amazing optical illusion. If you put your face right up to the screen you’ll swear it’s spinning.

Hmm, What Should I Read? Real Advice on Choosing a Book

As we’ve seen, going to the cinema is usually a waste of time these days. Much better to put your feet up and read a good book. However, a book is a considerably greater investment of time than a film, often requiring days or even weeks to get through, and with so many genres to choose from these days picking the right book can be a difficult, even stressful task. Here, then, are some tips to help you choose the right book. To ensure you don’t squander many hours on unrewarding reading simply avoid all of the following:

Anything written by a woman.

Practically every book written by a woman can be summarised in four words: he didn’t understand her. There are some books that don’t conform to this formula, Frankenstein, Harry Potter, some books by Agatha Christie, but these aren’t really worth reading either. Even in genre fiction female authors generally stick to the same theme, e.g. sci-fi: he didn’t understand her, because he was from Alpha Centauri and she was from Opsillon 5, horror: he didn’t understand her because she was a vampire, crime: he didn’t understand her so she killed him, etc. Of course, if you actually are a woman it’s quite conceivable that this theme will appeal to you.

Anything that’s the winner of a wanky ‘literary’ award like the Booker Prize.

If you really want to impress some intellectual halfwits and read such crap prepare to be utterly bored for what will seem like years (and in fact probably will be considering how easy such books are to put down) and be no wiser at the end of it.

Anything with dragons on the cover.

It’s not always true that you can’t judge a book by its cover. If there are dragons on a book cover there will be dragons in the book and only an idiot wants to read a book with dragons in it.

Anything by J. R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien made up entire languages and extended histories for his Middle Earth fantasies! What a twerp. Considering how tedious the man’s life must have been to actually devote a large portion of it to such pointless details it’s unsurprising the books aren’t much fun either, full of endless descriptions and pompous dialogue. They probably have dragons on the cover too.

Why Not Just Stick a Barrel Over Your Head For Two Hours?

I notice today that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is about to hit cinemas. On the other side of the Atlantic it's probably done so already. On the bright side, I suppose, at least if they scrape the barrel any further they’re bound to break through into clean air. How desperate for ideas can film studios possibly be? To actually pump tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours into an idea that wouldn’t excite me enough to turn the telly on if it was broadcast let alone actually go out to the cinema and pay real money to see? I’d rather give the money to charity and stick a barrel over my head for two hours since I’d be seeing the exact same thing.

Considering the amount of pointless remakes of TV series, cartoons and films in the last few years you’d think by chance alone a few would be decent. But I can’t think of any. Most are simply vehicles for CGI effects, which is somewhat bewildering when you think about it; considering the vast literature of science fiction, horror, action and other genres that we now have the technology to cinematise why do filmmakers spend vast resources on silly crap that was probably only commissioned because of budget and technical restrictions in the first place? I know the answer is obvious: that remakes are a safe bet with familiar characters and a ready made audience and are just the right intellectual level for your average movie going moron. Still, considering that the original fans are usually the ones who hate the remake most, and that the remakes never get any critical acclaim and never do much more than average at the box office either, is it really worth it when all those thousands of hours spent creating CGI effects could have gone into making some really amazing scifi epic from any number of authors or screenwriters. I mean, there are six billion people on the planet for Christ’s sake! Some of them must be able to come up with an idea for a good movie.

How about this; a movie director gets so bored with movie studios asking him to do crappy remakes he murders the studio bosses and makes a film about it. As a (not very) witty twist the movie bombs but a remake is a huge success.

Crap as this idea is, it’s still better than 99% of the films released in the last ten years.

300 Reasons Not to Watch This Rubbish

From the makers of Sin City, a film spoken of in hushed tones by critics and punters alike, a film that after thirty seconds I was literally screaming at my friends to turn off as the pompous, appallingly over-stylised and pretentious drivel was having the same effect as the US military’s new vomit weapons, comes another graphic-novel-inspired thing they show in cinemas.

With 300 however, I actually managed a full minute and a half (or however long the trailer lasted) of the exact same symptoms. Perhaps the small size of the player in my browser lessened the effect of the hideously stylised CGI. Even the non CGI visuals are ghastly, using that dated over-saturated look that advertisers like to depict black children in hot countries with to sell mobile phones or savings accounts. Piles of gut wrenchingly awful slow-motion (I mean is this actually in the film? I thought film makers had stamped out this hideously naff effect) and turgid soft metal make it seem more like a music video than a film. I suspect this may not have been unintentional but then why not just show it on MTV rather than wasting cinema screening time?

And when will filmmakers realise that CGI effects are just ugly. You don’t hear about people asking for their portrait in CGI. It just looks bad. Sure you can create lots of action sequences that would cost a fortune to actually film but they never really look convincing let alone artistic. Both the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels are more like cartoons than films, with battle sequences evoking as much visceral thrill as an elaborate game of skittles. I mean, when a character can surf down the trunk of a giant elephant as it crashes to the ground it’s hard to feel any real vicarious thrills in the way that, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, evoked. I’m presuming 300 at least doesn’t have anything quite so ridiculous as this but apparently the film is very violent.

Duh. Of course! Film morons are bound to love it. It’s ‘shockingly’ violent, hence credible (think Scorsese, Tarantino, Peckinpah etc.). What I don’t get is why the idiots who thank that violence = quality don’t make a feature length Tom & Jerry compilation and put that at the top of their best film lists. Of course, they would need to intersperse the violence with periods of relentless boredom, a la Raging Bull, Taxi Driver etc, and lots of macho bravado, perhaps Tom peeing and scratching the furniture, thus making it a study of ‘machismo’ or something. Tossers.

I don’t even need to see this film to know that it’s dreadful. There shouldn’t even be any need to write film reviews when it’s patently obvious that 99% of films released these days are a complete waste of time. Sod the cinema. Get a book from the library and give the money to a charity instead. Idiots.