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.