A new Bible is required

Yesterday, Sir Elton John revealed the shocking revelation that he wanted all organised religions to be banned. When I read the headline, the first thing that went through my mind was: "Is he for real? What new complaint does the loser have now?"

With a face like that, how can you not feel sorry for him?

But having read through the articles, I feel some sympathy towards him.

I know sir Elton is loony and a few pies short of a picnic but for once he has a point. As I was listening to the 5Live phone-in they had some insanely religious fundamentalist Christian woman (you know the type) who was just spreading what can only be described as anti-homosexual propaganda through the airwaves.

What is it with America and their dangerously high number of crazy religious people that follow the bible to each exact word? There's something not right about someone (who's not a priest) who can quote every line from the bible.

I digress. Elton John's idea of banning all religions is ridiculous. It's not like homophobia will go away if there was no religion. Religion is the justification and not the cause, it's crazy right-wing people (from the southern states no doubt) that are the cause (sorry to stereotype... but you have to admit. That's where they all seem to be from). If the last episode of South Park has taught us anything it's that there will always be hatred/violence etc. even without religion. It's human nature.

And the Bible's outdated; we just can't relate to it anymore. The bible preaches to love your neighbour but what if he's gay? A paradox is it not?

My solution to making Elton John shut up and solving the problems of America's fanatic religious population would be to publish a new updated bible.

It'd need to be shorter, easier to interpret and filled with a lot less confusing crap. Also cut out all the genesis crap, can't be just come to a compromise and say God created evolution? Let's be cool about this people.

We could change it gradually, so no one notices.

If it'll make American zealots shut up, isn't it worth it?

Mid-Term Elections: A British Perspective

I'll be frank, I could find nothing satirical about the Mid-Term elections to write about. But being such a huge topic at the moment, it seemed impossible to ignore (what with the landmark victory for the Democrats, new era for America etc.). But also, being British, I know huge amounts about the negative aspects of American politics and very little about the positive aspects of it.

Therefore imagine my shock when something seemingly good for American politics actually occurs.

I use the word seemingly because there are a number of things that don't seem quite right. It makes no sense that Bush should still be President after the elections. He lost didn't he? So why aren't the Democrats in power? It doesn't seem logical. And if the Democrats own both the House and the Senate, does that mean Bush and his cronies face an army of liberals when making policies?


Then there's foreign policy. What will this do to Anglo-American relations? Will we see less arse-licking from Blair? I vaguely remember someone saying something about the Democrats changing the Iraq policy. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing; on one hand it might mean the beginning of the end of American occupation, on the other hand it could mean England are left to deal with the shit-storm of unrest by themselves.

The Democrats aren't exactly a bundle of joy either. The thought of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John "Couldn't Beat Bush" Kerry in positions of power do not fill me with much enthusiasm. They are all extremely boring people, atleast with Bush he'd give the world something to laugh at (and take the heat from America), while John Kerry is a boring twat with the personality of stale cheese.

So to summarise... the nasty evil right-wing Republican bastards have been replaced with the kickass super awesome right-wing Democrats... Somehow I don't envisage much change in the future.

It kinda reminds me of British politics really.

Which is the one on the right?

Poppy: Red or White?

Apparently a question that has been raging for years. A religious think-tank has recently claimed that that red poppies sold to commemorate those who died in WWI are "less religious" to the white poppies being sold and that people should be able to choose between white and red ones. This has added fuel to the fire of the debate over wearing religion items (veils/crosses etc.).

The director of Ekklesia, Jonathan Bartley, said people should be able to choose between red or white ones.

He added red poppies implied redemption through war, but Christianity seeks redemption through non-violence. White ones were created to symbolise peace.

I didn't even know that white poppies existed and even if I did, I would still choose the red poppy. Not because of any religious implications but because the red poppies grew on Flanders fields and inspired Rememberance Day.


John Bartley clearly does not know what he's talking about. Red was the colour of the poppies on Flanders field, it has nothing to do with redemption whatsoever. The poppy has never been religious symbol (this is the first time I've heard of anyone considering it as one). It seems like Mr. Bartley has completely plucked this idea out of the air.

We would be missing the point if we read anything into the colour. The poppy has always been a reminder of the war so what does the colour matter? Mr. Bartley seems to be forgetting that the poppy is to help those that fought in the war and not some religious item to flaunt. The white poppy promotes peace but raises no money for those that fought in the war so why should people be wearing it for a day that remembers the soldiers that fought in the war?

If the colour of the poppy is why we wear it then we have definitely lost our way. From what I understand of the white poppy, it was created as an anti-war symbol to divert money from the veterans; which is totally inappropriate and immoral, especially since it will be for Rememberance Day. The white poppy is totally ridiculous and it would be a mockery to the veterans if it were sold.

Less globally, my school had a Rememberance Day assembly. Like the white poppy, it was incredibly stupid. Had any veterans turned up to watch they would be seething with rage at the disrespect my school showed with its lack of effort. No one sang or bothered to look as if they cared. Not that my school doesn't like war veterans; they just hate assemblies.

Human-Cow Embryos

Scientists from Newcastle (of all places) have recently applied for permission to develop stem cell research and fuse human DNA with Cow eggs. Since there's so much controversy over stem cells as it is, was it really such a good idea to bring up plans to create living things (if only for a few days) that are half-human half-cow?

At first, the idea horrified me. It all made sense once I had soaked in the facts and reassured myself that the world will not be taken over by armies of mutant humanoid-bovine freaks enslaving the human populance.


But what if the research were to fall into the hands of some crazy scientics who were to develop the cells further? Before you know it we'll have modern day minotaurs floating in sealed glass containers filled with luminous green liquids. They'll have the strength of an oxe, the intelligence of a chimp (we are being realistic here) and horns to gorge us with (and win head-butting competitions).

We'll think we have them under our control then before you know it they'll have burst out of their transparent cages, killed their makers and escape, leaving a path of distruction in their wake.


Then we'll have a Frankensteinesque situation on our hands. The new creations won't understand why we have brought them into society and once they find out our purpose for them was simply to harvest their stem cells to cure our incurable diseases, they'll be extremely pissed and start smashing things. Be warned, these things are known to happen (in movies) so if the situation does occur, you heard it here first.

If you think the idea of cow-men a bit too unrealistic, you must agree there is a possibility of unknown diseases developing. Since we are harvesting the bovine-human stem cells and eventually implanting them into humans is it not possible that people with the cells begin developing bovine traits? If you don't believe me click here.

And what about Bovine Flu? I heard it has the potential to be ten times as deadly as avian bird flu with the added edge of mad cow disease and/or foot and mouth disease. Since bird flu caused such mass hysteria why not bovine flu? It does exist doesn't it?

If you want evidence of the devastating effects of hydrid diseases you should watch Mission Impossible III.

But perhaps, as far-fetched as it sounds, the cells will function just as normal as any other stem cells do and won't create monsters capable of taking over the world. Since the cells are in such short supply, I think we can risk developing hybrid supercows for now.

Social Degeneration: Chavs

Definition of Chav: Burberry-wearing, bling-loving, Lacoste-tracksuited degenerate tossers. (If you're American, think a wigga obsessed with Burberry and fake tan)

It was only a few years ago when Chavs did not roam the earth and we were free to walk down dark back-alleys, hold our heads up high and not be intimidated by gangs of youths with nothing better to do than chain-smoke, vandalise and procreate in the streets before binge-drinking and passing out on the curb. Then when morning breaks, society will pick their disgusting forms out of the gutter and fix them up again for another night filled with violence and vices.

So it is definitely fair to say these low-lifes are the scum of the earth, and deserve to be forced to work camps to repay society for the damage caused by their random acts of violence and vandalism. However, what seems like an incredibly simple solution (lock them up and make pay back their debt to us) has been horribly dealt with by the government. So much so that the Chav population is actually rising.

But have no fear. Our saviour, David Cameron has reacted to protest at rising young offenders:

Young offenders should be shown "a lot more love" in an effort to encourage good behaviour, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.

He called for a more understanding approach as to why youths committed crimes in the first place. They must have counselling, education and training, he told the Youth Justice Board's annual convention in Cardiff.

The Tory leader suggested that children should receive "tough love" and, in turn, have "high standards" asked of them.

This was not the same as "sentimental, childish love which sees no wrong in anyone", he added.

Handing out anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) to young people or putting them in custody was "reacting" to crime, not "reducing" it, Mr Cameron said, and many institutions had become "social dustbins".

Oh I see... We should go around loving and embracing the Chavs! It seems ridiculous to pour taxpayers money into more counselling and education for a bunch of degenerates who clearly do not appreciate our help, and would rather be drinking cheap cider and vomitting on the pavement. It'd be a bigger money-waster than the NHS Blackhole.

But then again, I'm just a kid, what would I know about issues like politics and stuff? Dave Cameron clearly understands these things better than I do because he's such a "hip" and "cool" Tory.

If you ask me, the problem would be easily solved if there was a revamp in the youth justice system. If Chavs really think a ASBO was like a knighthood then the only solution is to scrap a system that doesn't work and replace it with a system that does. What I suggest is that anyone found passed out wearing Burberry should be rounded up and sent to a Brat Camp/juvenile delinquency center to work until they show some sense and willing to contribute to society (instead of dropping out of school and living off the dole). And if that doesn't work, use them as an alternative fuel to burn.

But at the moment, the situation will only worsen before it gets any better. Hopefully there will be a day when people can walk down the street without fear of being mugged by a twerp in a hoodie at knife point or happy-slapped on a double-decker bus. Until then, I shall think twice about walking walking alone in the dark.

Craven Cottage Prison?

Last weekend's Premiership game between Fulham and Everton was unfortunately marred by the throwing of a 10 pence piece by a member of the crowd at Claus Jensen when he was due to take a corner. Incidentally, the match ended 1:0 in Fulham's favour and they took all three points. After the match, Fulham coach Chris Coleman spoke out against fans who lob stuff onto the pitch, calling them to be immediately identified, fined and sent to prison.

Chris Coleman warns people to stop wasting their money on his cash-strapped club

Similarly, although with no link to the 'beautiful' game, an independent think-tank (blast their hides, always stirring up controversy) complained of the lack of life skills pupils get during their secondary education. They claimed that teenagers left to their own devices when leaving school could be at risk due to not being able to prepare simple food and complete menial household tasks. How hard can it be to open a tin of beans, or, for the more culinarily advanced such as myself, whack up a quick risotto. As for household tasks, there can only be one way to hold a vacuum cleaner, surely? This panel of so-called 'experts' also expressed their heart-felt concerns that children are being left without the necessary communication skills in an increasingly global environment. In my view, the Internet, MSN, mobile phones and email have left us increasingly communicative. Not necessarily a good thing if you like a bit of peace and quiet. This think-tank pushed for the introduction of longer school days with more of an emphasis on skills rather than qualifications. Not exactly what you need when faced with an increasingly ignorant nation.

Alarmingly, they also suggested that any parent or guardian who does not wish their child attend these after school 'lessons' should be fined and imprisoned. With the current jail overcrowding and pressure on the Home Office, this is probably not the best way to alleviate the problems of poor communication and 'bored' teenagers with more ASBOs than years. Alternatively, perhaps John Reid is considering converting Craven Cottage in a new super-prison for vicious coin-throwers and deadly after-school club avoiders? This would solve three problems with one extensively delayed and expensive contracted mess. On the positive side, it would have a capacity of nearly 40,000 and as for the criminals, surely the best exercise yard in the whole of Europe?

Saddam: Death Sentence Unfair?

Another day, another tyrant brought to justice by the Americans. Only this morning, the BBC announced that Saddam Hussien was guilty for crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death by hanging. Although he was a dictator and killed hundreds of his people (but the Americans have killed more), the whole trial was a fiasco and he was convicted for totally the wrong reasons.

First the Americans, in fear of communism, "assisted" the Ba'ath Party who overthrew the Quassim's party in a military coup. Saddam Hussien had been part of an assasination attempt on Prime Minister Quassim, backed by (who else but) the Americans. If anything it should be the Americans that should be punished for putting the Iraqi people under Saddam and the Ba'ath Party's regime.

In 2003, after 9/11 America wanted a foothold in the Middle East so accused Saddam of links with Al-Quaeda (although we later found out Saddam was too snobbish to collaborate with them) and accused the country of developing weapons of mass destruction. The mission, suitably codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (ironic considering it was the Americans that took it away) was to bring down Saddam Hussein and strip him of the massive stash of biological and chemical weapons he possessed.

So after lots of bombing of innocent people, lots of deaths of British/American soldiers the Americans find Saddam hiding out in a cave and drag him out to face true American justice.

The US then set up a court with no credibility whatsoever (anyone found sympathetic towards Saddam was taken off the court). Saddam himself claimed he had been tortured but this was denied by the Americans who claimed there was no evidence (but of course).

And that brings us to today. Saddam has been convicted, conveniently just before the mid-term elections. Huzzah and hurrah to the Republicans who brought him to justice!

Double Standard: Tyrant convicted of crimes against humanity sentenced to hanging, a crime against humanity.

Saddam did commit many atrocities in his time but he did not recieve a fair trail. The Americans went into Iraq and arrested him on trumped up charges (to this day no weapons of mass distruction were ever discovered. Except for a few bags of fertiliser), put infront of a kangaroo court and convicted solely for the Republican election campaign.

But Iraq is now in turmoil without Saddam, the only one who can control them. Democracy has really triumphed over there, with looting, violence, no law and order. The Americans cared too much about Iraq's precious oil to be bothered to set up a system to keep the peace.

If I remember correctly, the Americans dismantled the police in Iraq and also the military. So no law and order but lots of angry Iraqis with access to military weapons? Great idea Bush.

But as the Americans will say. Justice has been done. They've got their precious oil and a boost in the mid-term elections, no one will care when they bugger off and leave Iraq in the state it's in now. So who will pick up the pieces?

Helium and PayPerPost

What are Helium and PayPerPost? What do they have in common with me?

Both claim to be able to pay me to write which is probably the closest I will ever get to becoming a journalist (so am I a freelance journalist now?). This is how it should be really since the thought of a life long career in journalism does not have me jumping for joy, considering how much I love to write.

I guess this is the perfect compromise: Since few people frequent this blog anyway it wouldn't really matter if I sold out and started shilling links. I get motivated and paid while you occasionally get to read something good.

So why do I feel so bad about doing it? Helium is perfectly fine since I'm posting on another website so doesn't affect this one (unless I post something really good and link to it) but it's PayPerPost that's the problem.

PayPerPost works in the way that bloggers are paid to write articles on their blog advertising products/services etc. The problem I have with this is would I be selling out and losing the soul of the blog? For a (relatively) lucrative salary would I be forsaking everything I stand for? Would I no longer be able to command the respect of my fellow bloggers?

But then I thought, who cares? What's the point of having a popular blog if I'm not going to make any money out of it? All great TV channels have ads (except the BBC but then there's TV license, I can't exactly charge all my readers to read this blog. It isn't good enough yet) and I've got University to think about.

So expect some extremely biased posts in the future. A word of warning, I would give any post a miss that has the label "product".

BitTorrent - The Modern Day Robin Hood

Probably the best invention after the Internet. Taker from the rich and giver to the poor, BitTorrent has enriched everyone's life with free entertainment. Mostly poor quality mp3's that cause your speakers to explode and your ipod inplode, or perhaps shaky footage films with shadows of people walking out of the cinema. My personal favourite are the games that are five gigabites and wouldn't occupy anyones interest for more than five minutes.

Let's not forget the risk of a computer riddled with viruses; subscribing you to endless pornographic sites, emailing your billing information to Nigeria and setting fire to your hardware. But like Robin Hood there are risks to what they do.

It's a tough world, peddling illegal goods over cyberspace. It seems strange that total strangers would risk life and limb (with no benefits to themselves other than thousand pound fines) to give ungrateful bastards like us the chance to swindle musicians, actors, game developers out of their livelihood.

You might get the impression I am against theft over the internet such as this. Well you're wrong.

It seems unfair that we should pay for the mediocrity produced by the entertainment industry, most of whom are incredibly rich and famous. Who cares if Bono can't afford another diamond studded guitar if I download "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb"? Or if Madonna can't buy herself another baby if I don't buy one of her shitty songs?

These people don't need your money. Infact, the only people I do feel slight sympathy towards are the game developers (who do not lead superstar lifestyles. If anything I pity their lonely nerdy lives). But the feeling quickly passes.

But many people don't want us to enjoy the wonders of this uncontrollable, illegal, and possibly dangerous system so that money stays with the industry and lines the pockets of the fat cats (and funds a new Armarni suit for Jay-Z).

These people have clearly never enjoyed the wonders of enjoying mediocre stuff without the regret of paying for something so ordinary. Had there been no BitTorrent, I would not be playing Football Manager 2007 right now.

So if you excuse me, I have some files to download.

The Secret Policemans' Ball

Yesterday Amnesty International revived The Secret Policemans' Ball... How could it live up to the standard set by Cleese and co.? The truth is it didn't.

The show started off strong with a good performance of stand up from Eddie Izzard. Jon Culshaw and Ronny Ancora did some excellent impressions (as usual) and a cameo performance from Natalie Imbruglia in a routine with Dave Armand was surprisingly entertaining. New-comer Andrew Maxwell was incredibly funny although his stand-up was sadly short-lived.

But who ever cares about the things that go right? The following acts were a serious let-down:

Al Murray - He performed his very British (shitty) Pub Landlord act but added a pantomine twist to it. Since he's a crap comedian to begin with it doesn't really matter.

Russel Brand - I grudgingly admit that his stand-up was pretty decent last night. However, he still sounds like a prat and looks like a prat.

There was also a really poor manor houses sketch where they basically paraded some semi-famous British comedians and some no-mark actors (mostly from Greenwing).

But it was the Americans that were the real let-down:

Chevy Chase - What's he famous for? His sketch was a total dissapointment, especially since it was meant to be one of the highlights of the show. Even Seth Green couldn't improve it.

Jimmy Falon - Another no-mark American loser. After watching Jon Culshaw and Ronni Ancora, his impressions were unimpressive. Even Barry off Eastenders was funnier (and he only got about 5 lines).

Sarah Silverman - Highly anticipated act gone horribly wrong (another "famous" name I've never heard of). Her stand-up probably generated the least laughs, mainly because she failed when talking about controversial issues like racism, rape, abuse (some of the easiest topics to make funny). If she wants to succeed at stand-up she should take lessons from Eddie Izzard.

What Silverman thought of her act last night

Since all the American acts sucked, this could only mean American humour is shit (which is a relief since Britain are finally good at something).

Oh and the musical acts were surprising. They weren't bad but the Zutons and Magic Numbers? You would expect U2, oasis or some other big name bands to grace the show.

So The Secret Policemans' Ball was an utter letdown. But also American comedians are rubbish.