Old News

Bruce's dreams were always the same. Of that moment that defined him forever after. That moment, out in the grounds of the mansion, where he first found the cave.
He never fell in his dreams. They always started after the fall, laying out at the bottom of the shaft with a ragged beam of sunlight framing him amidst the darkness. What he dreamt of was the storm. The maddening tempest and stinging winds that engulfed him as he stumbled to his feet. The deafening percussion of whipping leather that seemed to cover every inch of him as he struggled to break free. The column of bats, that reached as high and as wide as Bruce's vision could take in. This is what filled Bruce's dreams.
At first, these dreams had been nightmares; a stark reminder of his most harrowing experience as a child, until the night of his parents' death. That night, he had longed for the dream to come; to be engulfed and hidden in that midnight cyclone. He stood amongst the bats and waited for the moment his father would descend and pick him out from the middle of the swarm and pull him from the cave. The bats were fearsome, but saved him from the reality he had been left in without his parents.
Now, he saw the bats for what they really were in his life. A cloak. A cover to hide the mortal, human element and the force that gave him his strength. He was one of the swarm, a part of the idea. Now, whilst he dreamt, he bathed in the fluttering wings and the sharp calls that covered him. He fed off their presence, absorbed his rising fear, ready to unleash it on those he would stalk the following night. The bats filled the cave just as they filled his mind, holding his strength and his will to continue his fight.
At the end, the bast would fly off through the hole he had come through, off to influence the world just as they had been an influence to him, reminding him that this was still a job he needed to acheive.

Lloyd and Walter

           Slumped in an easy chair on a veranda looking out over the Rockies, amidst the eclectic and extravagant excesses that had accumulated over his distinguished career, Lloyd dazedly awaited the expected ring at his doorbell whilst curiously peering into his glass at the dregs of 18 year Whiskey that had clung to the remaining clumps of ice.

           On the walls behind him were a range of random pieces of modern art; bought purely because Lloyd could do so, which were interspersed with photos of his past; glimpses captured at the flicker of an eye by an itchy trigger finger but which became more and more momentous with each passing glance Lloyd paid them. In the pictures he was a young, vibrant, passion-filled hero. He commanded his followers to feel and to think. He was Moses on the Mountain-top. A far cry from the face that looked upon them; aged and withered, the stresses of constant travel and excess told on the glazed and sunken eyes. 

           He could feel his own fragility without looking at his wrinkled and mildly arthritic hands. It wormed through his body, sapping at his soul and smothering the fire that had kept him alive and fighting for so long. He let out a heavy sigh and moved the glass over to the table by his side and closed his eyes, trying to forget the room of memories that lay behind him.

            Walter stepped out of his car onto the winding driveway that ran up to the house from the small pass off of the main mountain road. Looking up at the huge house that rested against the mountain, he considered the man inside and the time that had passed since that night when their world blew apart. He had been beside himself with anxiety throughout the flight and the drive into the mountains and, now, he was staring up at this potential nightmare.
            The phone call had come completely from out of the blue. He hadn't even thought about Lloyd for a few years, which he regretted, despite the manner of their parting. Nevertheless, it was still difficult to put that all aside and agree to this meeting. The bad blood still ran cold through their relationship, even if it had been slowed and weakened by old age. But fighting had taken its toll on both of them and robbed each of them of a close friend and vital muse. Neither had enjoyed the creative flair that had been so vibrant when they were making music together. The opportunity to make amends was too much to pass up simply because of spite.
             So here he was, climbing the steps of his old friends house, images flashing through his mind; some of a glorious past, others of the potentially disastrous near-future and; most prominently, one image of immense pain that had torn up the band and stained his life since. And now he was staring at the very door he had stormed out of twenty years earlier, hoping this time it might be less painful. He raised his finger to the door bell and waited, the fading chimes serving only to build his anxiety to an unbearable crescendo.

              Shuffling and stumbling, Lloyd got out of his chair and approached the door. He hadn't seen Walter in so long and feared the sight that might great him. His round face had always seemed smooth and clean; portraying an innocence that belied his status as a rock star. Would he open the door to find that that face hadn't changed? Would he stare into eyes still as clear and bright as they had been since they first met? Or worse, would he meet a face so ravaged by the stresses and troubles of the last twenty years that he would not recognise the man who been at his side for so long? Would he see a man broken because of what he had done? He paused at the door, staring at the picture that stood beside it. A picture of the both of them, on stage, where they had been happiest.
               He wrenched the door open and braced himself. Within the door frame stood Walter. That was all. No demon sent to torture him or angel spent to spurn him. Just Walter; slightly more wrinkled and tired, perhaps, but with the same smile and the same sharp eyes, even if they were behind a pair of spectacles. Walter's hand, looking perfectly usual despite the passing of time, extended outwards towards him and Walter spoke, in Walter's voice, just like always.
               "It's good to see you. It really is so bloody good to see you."
Lloyd was dumbstruck. It hadn't occurred to him that this would be easy, would be just like they'd always been. But it was, and it was hard to know how to take the relative ease of this situation. He figured he had best take the hand to start with and see how it went from there.

                Walter grasped the cautiously offered hand and shook it warmly. Seeing Lloyd's face so full of concern as well as age had dragged his mind from out of the past into the now, staring at his aged friend looking like he was about to die of embarrassment for having taken so long to try and fix things. After so many years feeling bitter about how the band had torn apart, it felt so good to just finally see a friend rather than a band member. He brought his other arm up to rest on Lloyd's shoulder and saw the man smile feebly as he too began to see the past fall away.
                "Likewise, mate. I's been way too long." Lloyd declared as he rested his free hand on Walter's shoulder and brought him inside. Walter gazed around at what had been a haven from the world when working on a record or when recovering from touring. The pictures on the walls made the room feel heavily nostalgic but it was nice to be back where the music had flowed so freely.

                As they entered the main room Walter's eyes were immediately drawn to the piano; still where it had been since they first started working here, but now covered with empty glasses and crumpled sheets of paper. Lloyd walked off to the kitchen to fetch drinks, leaving Walter staring at this piece of history that had seen the birth of so many songs. He felt himself move towards it, unconsciously sitting himself at the keys and warming up his hands. He had started to play by the time Lloyd had returned with two cups of tea and a pad of paper, placing them all on the lid of the piano and asking through a pencil clasped between his teeth, "Couldn't keep away from it, eh?"
                 "No, I never can," Walter mused, running up and down the scales on the keys. "Shall we get started then?"
                 "Let's do it."
                 A piano rang out around the Rocky Mountains. For the first time in twenty years, it seemed glad to do so.

Controlling the Controllers

There's a pretty mad battleground being drawn in the virtual sand at the moment and I can't help but feel a bit confused as to exactly why. Let's begin at the very beginning, shall we?

Once upon a time, in a dark room somewhere, some wizened alchemists of yore developed a new marvel. A wonder of light and sound and repetitive action. This new wizardry was to be called Pong and was to change the face of leisure activities as we knew it then. Or as older people knew it at least. But to control this great display of simulated ice hockey/tennis/whatever it was supposed to be, a new device had to first be crafted so that those that partook of the delights of this Pong could directly influence it. And so; forged from the very plastic that had been provided for this purpose, the first Games Controller was brought forth. And lo, there was rejoicing throughout the land. Amen.

Since these humble beginnings there have been many controllers, each attempting to add some new improvement to make gaming that much easier or comfortable. From the Holy Brick that was the NES controller to the strange trident of the N64. From SEGA's sleek and sexy Mega Drive controller to the weird ugly beast that controlled the Dreamcast. Even going so far as racing wheels and light guns. So many iconic designs, so many variations. Turbo buttons, Joysticks, D-Pads, Shoulder buttons, Rumble Paks, Memory card things (seriously, what was that thing on the Dreamcast controller for?). All these features but with one key element the same. The The D-Pad/Stick moves things and the buttons do things. Pretty simple, pretty extensive, pretty flawless. Isn't broke, doesn't need fixing.

And then Nintendo had an idea. While the rest of the gaming world was focusing on Hi-Def and powerful processing, Nintendo looked elsewhere. To the controller. To a new gimmick; after tiny discs and Rumble Paks that weren't just built into the controller to start with. They brought forth a question, a fearful doubt over how games were played. They pondered on the idea of controlling things with physical movement, on Motion Controllers. And so the world as a whole gasped in awe as the Nintendo Wii emerged with its white stick of power dancing erotically in front of our eyes, dazzling all with its power to simulate a baseball bat and then a golf club and then a samurai sword and then a tennis racket. It entranced us all and sold by the hotcake-load.

But then, we found out the truth. Sure, at replicating a swinging action, swinging your arm worked to invoke the desired response from your avatar. But past that, many problems became noticeable. The accuracy was questionable, the sensor bar; easily confused. The lack of buttons required actions to be commanded through seemingly irrelevant movements of the remote and, above all, there were the endless masturbation jokes. Controlling the Wii became an uncertain experience, owing as much to luck as to skill and, quite frankly, it just didn't seem worth being able to actually control a Mario Kart by tilting the controller like we had all subconsciously done in the past. Real, die hard, Played-on-the-NES-and-owned-every-model-of-Gameboy-that-was-released-ever gamers didn't see the need to flail your arm around like a loon just to get Link to swing his sword at someone. Motion control had to be just a fad, right?

But then we come to today, and the ever nearing battle between the other two Games giants. Those that spurned Motion control for better quality graphics and games. Sony and Microsoft. Playstation and X-Box. Good and Evil (This is me being impartial, I'm not saying outright which is which). These two companies have been the pinnacle force in gaming for the last decade and, once more, they are competing for top dog with their new innovation. ... Motion control? Seriously?

It's been coming for a while now. Sony's Playstation Move; essentially a (supposedly) more accurate and more glowy version of a Wii Controller and X-Box's Project Natal Kinect Whatever else it gets called before its eventual release; a gadget boasting its freedom from the reliance on controllers. WOW(!) Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, but I'm not really enthused. As highlighted earlier, Motion control is all well and sparkly (even more so considering the disco light at the end of each Move controller), but it is impractical when you're playing a sports sim or an RPG. You just end up frustrated at the fact you can't just press X to attack and, instead, have to accurately recreate sword techniques laid down by Miyamoto Musashi (yes, I had to look it up).

This problem is exacerbated even more by the Kinect and its supposedly impressive boast that it needs no controllers. What I can't understand is why people are impressed with this. So, instead of using a proven and very reliable method of pressing buttons to do things in a game when we need to, we now have to learn mime and shout what we want done before waiting to see if the recognition software works accurately and quickly enough to do the right action. Does this not seem silly to anyone else? Playing a racing game by miming that you are driving. Why not just go drive? Or, presuming the reason you want to play a driving game is that you can't drive in real life, why not just sit in a cardboard box and use your imagination? You'd look like less of an idiot then the guy who sits in front of a screen frantically flailing his arms and legs because there is too much room for error in a software's interpretation of your movements coupled with the guy that just walked between you and the screen or the itch you just had to scratch.

I can see merits in controller-free control. I, like many others, had a minor fit when I saw Tom Cruise manipulating his computer screen by physically moving stuff around with his hands. I prayed for the day that that technology would arrive. Feasibly, the Kinect offers that. But Microsoft has advocated the use of Kinect as a games controller and, as such, it is flawed. To bring in a flawed accessory to do the job of something that does it perfectly already smacks of desperate money-grabbing. I like games controllers. It always interests me to see what each new one will look like and what features they will have. I thought the PS3 controller was a marvel and, admittedly, that is down to the new Sixaxis thing where you can make movements by tilting the controller. But that worked. Tilting to keep balance whilst walking along a beam is a truly helpful innovation and, considering we all sort of did that anyway, makes a lot of sense. But I digress. The point is, I have never looked at a games controller and raged that it was the bane of my games playing existence. I never saw all the buttons and cried out for the ability to just flail my arms desperately instead. I was happy with games controllers just the way they were.

In the spirit of opinion and review, I will give this final thought. The Wii is fun and, for some games, it offers an advantage. Point and Click does well on the Wii. But, ultimately, there are times when you don't bother with the motion controls and you just use the old fashioned NES layout on the Remote. As for the Move and Kinect, I haven't tried them but I've seen demo footage and I think from that the Move is better. There have been a lot of bugs with Kinect demos that were obviously going to happen from the first advert I saw for it. That and the Move has controllers, a clear benefit.

But, in the end, even if I had any money I don't think I'd be rushing out to buy any of these. Secretly, I'm keeping an eye out for what the Move comes up with as it does look scarily accurate. If it can give us some really good games as well then it may just make it worthwhile. The Kinect, however, will need to do a lot to convince me it is really benefiting the world of gaming. I don't have an X-Box as it is and the Kinect is hardly making me regret my decision to avoid getting one. For now, though, I'll stick to mashing buttons.

The English Revolution

I have been considering revolutions today, thanks to a song put in my head by a certain friend of mine who shall remain nameless but not tagless. See below for details.

Anyway, my knowledge of revolutions has revealed a certain trend as to how they are undertaken. Namely, that a group of angry and determined men and women find some guns/swords/pitchforks/pointy sticks and charge up to the local place of government office and start taking heads. The French in particular were masters of this. But I got to thinking; what would the English do if suitably moved to revolution?

I can only assume, not a lot. We aren’t exactly the aggressive type, on the whole, especially when it comes to politics. We’re more the “angry letter writing” type.

And so; on that note, I present the most likely action that an English Revolutionary group will take once they move for power. Enjoy!

*  *  *

Letter to Head of State, Buckingham Palace:

Cc: Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street.

Dear Mrs Windsor-Royal-Saxe-Coburg

I represent a political group intent on releasing the workers of the country from their bourgeois masters and bringing equality and fairness to this great country of ours and, unfortunately, you represent a symbol of those that we would wish removed from the country. It is with great regret that we must request that you dissolve Parliament and relinquish you and your family’s position as Monarch, handing power over to us; as representatives of the people. We enclose a petition of 30,000 names signed to support this proposal and hope that you would accept this with good grace. Please be assured that we have only the interests of the country and its citizens at heart.

Whilst a small minority of us supported a motion to pursue this change of government through violent means, we as a whole agreed it was much more acceptable to follow a more diplomatic course of action to avoid uncivilised bloodshed. As a part of this, we are determined to ensure that you and your entire family are provided equal status with the rest of the country, rather than put you through the rigmarole of a messy execution. As equal citizens of this new British state, you will be expected to contribute along with everybody else and we appreciate that this will be an unusual experience for you. Rest assured, however, that upon receiving the benefits of an equal share in the successes of the State you will find this work very much worth your while and we hope you will enjoy the proposed residences that form part of our Comradeship Housing Scheme. I can tell you now I really am excited by what we have designed so far.

But I digress. It only remains for me to ask that, upon receipt of this letter, you vacate the Crown and invite us to take power within 17 working days. Failure to do so will result in a follow-up notice being served, followed by a final notice. After which, we will have to pursue legal action or a coup d’état. We hope that, like us, you would prefer not to go through such an ugly process and that you willingly accept our generous proposals listed above.

We hope this letter finds you in good health.

Sincerely yours,

Brother Thompson, Secretary for the Committee Members United in Solidarity Together (ComMUniST)

*  *  *

(Don’t mock, it took me ages to think of an acronym that worked.)

Something less theological.

I have a guitar.

This is not really news. It is more a reminder to myself more than anything. It is still there. Propped up against its amp. Calm, restful.

I used to play it an awful lot. Nowadays, I feel it is neglected. I still play it from time to time, but it feels like going through the motions. It used to be that I would see my guitar as a future, a way towards a dream. A means of getting a hit of the one thing I, and many others, want more than anything else: attention.

Maybe admiration is more appropriate. Or, perhaps, recognition. Whatever the accurate term, this guitar would be my means to that end. Part of a partnership that would both reach to the stars and scrape along the gutters and throw what it picked up from these colourful dwellings at the faces and eardrums of those caught in the middle. And I would float on the wave of appreciation that I received in return, blissfully satisfied at what I had created; what I had done to the world. Everytime I picked up my guitar in the past, I felt somehow attached to that future.

Now, however, that feeling is not there. Though I still feel a sense of relief as I let each strained and howling note or chord be my mental expression, this has now become tainted by a feeling of futility. I strum along the strings half-heartedly, each slipped accidental a surrender to apathy. A question as to why I even try. I play, knowing full well how much I doubt myself; my ability. And though the dream is still there, it is much more melancholic and distant. My future self seeing the truth of the make-believe. The fabrication that he both resides in and represents. The stars and the gutter are both there, but they seem empty, not worth persuing. Or more truthfully, whilst they are within reach, I doubt I would know what I sought even if I found it.

Twenty-four frets and six strings; a language I once knew but struggle to speak these days. And I'm not sure I really want to sometimes.

What will become of my writing? I write so infrequently as it is and with no real direction. I conceive ideas but cannot face raising them. Like my music, I also question my writing. Can I really take it anywhere? Or is it just another illusion, a distraction from deciding on a life between the gutter and the stars?

I don't like being introspective and I will probably regret posting this when I wake up. I'm not sure what the purpose of posting this will be. But I'm not really sure I've been being myself when writing lately. I've been trying to be important, trying to make sure I could justify each entry. Trying to write about the world, so that I might work a space for myself in it. But no-one remembers a news article. Everyone remembers a song.

X-Treme Atheism!!!

It seems the role of aged, conservative and self-important men to say or do really stupid things. Us in the UK have the bastion of foot-in-mouthery in the guise of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Show him the opportunity to be awkwardly racist and he will take it with both hands, both feet and all guns blazing.

But it seems there is a new pretender to this heavyweight of ignorance and awkwardness. And what's more, he has God on his side. In the blue corner; in the Papal Pants of White and Gold and the impressively pointy hat, His Eminence, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI!!

For as the Pope took to the spotlight in his first appearance in Britain; now classified a "Third World Country" by his representatives in the Vatican, he gave a speech offering the hand of friendship in the hope of improving relations between Britain and the Vatican and was full of praise for our efforts in defeating the Nazi's.

He then proceeded to elevate that hand with a bend at the elbow, put his thumb to his nose, wiggle his fingers and proclaim "Nuh nuh nuh-nuh nuh!

Yey, for it was that then His Holiness decided to warn of an impending terror, bigger than any ever before faced on our planet, and possibly worse than Aliens with evil intent. No, not the ignorance displayed by important world leaders but the perils of extremist atheists! And just like our country kept the tyranny of God-hunting Nazis at bay, so should they, with equal disdain, cast out the Evil Atheists, lest they destroy the world.

Well done, Benny. Well done.

So, admittedly, this isn't going to piss off the country as a whole. The Daily Mail are sure to love it, and will be spouting anti-atheist rhetoric and Bible quotes a-plenty in the weeks to come. Atheists are not the majority by any stretch of the imagination. But what a great way to show off the benefits of the Religion you have made your employment as well as vocation. By going out and comparing atheists to the Nazi regime. Peace and Love to all men!

I am, as is probably very clear by now, an Atheist. I could list the reasons why, but this blog is long enough. To put a long story short; I like science too much to harbour the belief it was all created. Deifactured if you like. Random chance is what gets me off. Putting an overall architect in the mix is just boring.

But, on the whole, I don't care if what you live and die by is the all-encompassing belief in a God being at the centre of all this magic. I accept the diverse nature of human frailties and that a large number of people feel that life is much more than what can be rationalised. Fair enough, there is a lot of crazy shit out there. If you want to put that down to the intervention of the Omnipotent then I'm not to say that you are misguided. We are all guided by our own individual influences and reasonings. I will happily leave you to it.

So why can't you leave me to my atheism? Why does the Christian Church feel so obliged to meddle and to poke at atheists, hoping they'll crack and follow their God's will? I single this to Christianity simply because a) I'm talking about the Pope and b) I have only ever been bothered by Christians in this way. Never before have I been walking through the High Street only to be bothered by a Hindi asking me if I have let Ganesh into my life and; if not, given me 5 reasons why I will be reincarnated as a tapeworm if I don't.

Getting back on track, to say the Pope's comparison is unfair would be a cataclysmic understatement. Yes, the Nazi's attacked religion. But mostly Judaism. And, though my Nazi History is a bit rusty, I'm pretty sure this was due to extremist Christian assertions that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus. Not because Hitler was a really angry atheist. There was also, I think I am right in saying, a Nazi church with Christianity as it's principle guidelines. And of course, famously, the Pope at the time of Nazism, Pope Pious XII, did nothing to stop Hitler throughout his time in power. So, essentially, the Catholic Church stood and watched whilst Hitler went about destroying the Jewish, Black and Gay population of Europe, as well as others. I, as an atheist on the other hand, have barely enough motivation to write this blog against the Pope's crazed ramblings, and I am deemed worthy of condemnation as an extremist, comparable to Nazi persecution. Slightly disproportionate I feel.

This is ignoring both the fact that Ratzinger was a Nazi Youth himself and the rather prominent consideration that; in terms of criticising extremism, the Catholic Church doesn't have a leg to stand on, particularly in the realms of religious persecution (Inquisition and the Crusades anyone?). This is because, in my most logical eye, the current Pope is hardly to blame for either the Nazis or the previous actions of the Catholic Church. What Pope Benedict is responsible for, however, is the progression of the Catholic Church. In this, I can only see that he is failing at his task. He had a chance here to genuinely offer a friendly hand, attempt to reason the benefits that Religion could offer the world and change the perception of the Catholic Church for the better. Sadly; he resorted to auto-Christian and, instead, chose to attack those who disagree with religion in an attempt to belittle their claims as extremist nonsense. And so, once again, progression is cast aside in favour of redrawing battle lines with those who are different.

As a closing thought, I wish to share the thought which allows me to take pleasure in this unpleasant man's ignorant comparison. During my Philosophy degree I was introduced to the idea of the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Put simply, this is where an argument is made against a policy because of similarity to Hitler and the Nazi party, suggesting that this similarity means that acceptance of the particular policy will lead to further, Nazi-like evils. The man who highlighted this form of argument, Leo Strauss, regarded this as a false form of argument. A form of scare tactic to end debate and interest in a policy using guilt tactics. Essentially, when an argument reaches a Reductio ad Hitlerum, the argument has failed.

And so, I can sleep restfully, safe in the knowledge that I am not a Nazi and that the Pope is just a desperate old man who just wants to hide in his castle.

Time to step on some shaky ground...

I don't like talking about religion. I know that there is a part of me that stores up the rage felt at every hateful and ignorant thing said in the name of a God and just yearns to turn it back, in one massive wave of anger, at every single person that believes it is right to hate and discriminate because of their particular faith and It wouldn't stop until every single one had broken down in tears. And I'm not really very keen to give it the opportunity. I don't want to be that person.

But the events set to dominate this week are distinctly of a religious nature. Today saw the remembrance of the events of September 11th 2001. Whilst there was a clear hope for many that today could be a catalyst to bring the country together and start on a stronger future for all in America, this hope was undermined by a minority with anger as their driving force. In the days leading up to September 11, the vicar of a small church in Florida announced he was planning to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary, as a means of protesting the planned installation of an Islamic centre and Mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero. This was, perhaps inevitably, put on hold due to the intervention of the FBI and other influence from the Government. In retaliation, however, a small group of Muslims burned a US flag outside the embassy in London during the rememberance events. I can only really express my disappointment, but not my surprise.

When I first heard about the proposal to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, I knew instantly it was a catastrophe waiting to happen and, most likely, the straw that breaks Obama's hopes of reinstatement. Whist I could not argue with the intended sentiment and the potential act of unity that would be a worthy beacon to show the terrorists that their actions are not working, it was never going to work. The divide in America runs too deep, the majority too set in their ways for the country as a whole to unite behind a common goal; togetherness. As much as I can hope for this Mosque to succeed as a symbol that religious tolerance can happen, I can understand the feelings of those who see it as belittling the memory of those loved ones that were killed. But, I would beg that those people consider that Islam has also been damaged irreperably by the events nine years ago and that, perhaps, building a Mosque should similarly be a memorial to Islam and its followers, which is now blamed on mass for the actions of an extreme minority with a severely distorted view of their religion.

The thing is, governments rely on promoting an 'us and them' mentality in the public that follows it. It used to be the basis of how the Labour party ran its campaigns, Hitler used it to gain power and America was practically founded on it. It is especially useful during wartime to encourage public support for military action (see the Cold War, the Vietnam War, every Civil War and every act of Empire building ever). It is also highly encouraged by religious practitioners, especially in modern times of Gay marriage and female equality. And so it is that Reverend Terry Jones (at one point "Terry Jones" was trending on Twitter. I wondered what the former Python was getting up to. Imagine my disappointment) feels he must take a stand against what he sees as the Devil's work and announces his plans to burn the Islamic Holy text. Again, I can only say how this disappoints, but does not surprise me. Recent history is stacked full of examples of Christians showing just how much thier religion makes them tolerant. A friend of mine had an encounter like this only today. And they all miss the point of the religion they so dearly love to throw in our face.

I want to point out now, this is not exclusive to Christianity. The retaliatory attack in London by Muslims burning the American flag is just as disappointing, if only because of how much today should mean to Islam as well as America. Similarly, it needs to be remembered that these actions on both sides will most likely meet with condemnation by members of each aggressor's own respective faith and that, in the end, these extreme minorites do not speak for the religion itself. But it wont be. These actions or threats will go onto the list of reasons why each extremist group hates the other and the divide will grow even deeper. Everyone will focus on the label and overlook the ignorant nature of the individual.

And if this crazy religious controversy wasn't enough, we in the UK are faced with our own batch when Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger (not to be confused with John Ratzenberger; or Cliff from "Cheers", like I did), visits the country. If you're living outside the UK, then you may not know that everyone here is somewhat miffed that we're allowing this man of God into the country, due to his being a thoroughly unpleasant and dastardly individual. His actions have allowed a large but unknown number of Catholic priests to avoid punishment (by non-omnipotant beings at least) for the rape of children all over the Catholic world, doing everything in his power to silence the victims and cover up the whole case. Add to that his message to Africa, that condoms help spread the HIV/AIDS virus and the fact this visit will be at the cost of the taxpayer to the sum of around £20 million and it's not hard to see why the country is less than pleased.

Once again, one man's interpretations of a religious text has sparked anger and led to a huge degree of injustice in the aim of protecting the Catholic Church. This man has clearly done a great deal of damage to many lives around the world. And yet we are welcoming this man as a Head of State and showing him our greatest hospitality. And all because he is head of the Catholic Church. It's not even as if Britain is a Catholic country. Quite the opposite, in fact, considering there is still in effect a ruling which prevents any Catholic from taking the throne. So why are we inviting this man into our country when we should be actively condemning his actions?

I am not alone in my thinking this; there are a number of protests planned for his visit, and I'm not exactly saying anything that isn't already well known. But it highlights a point. In regards to the workings of religion, so much can often be decided by individuals with agendas. I have encountered a number of people who would criticise religion as a whole because of what the Pope has done, or what men like Rev. Terry Jones preach to their respective flocks. The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church has inspired a lot of resentment towards Christianity. But, in reality; despite my beliefs that religion, on the whole, is outdated, I cannot lay the blame at what I would understand to be the fundamentals of religion. It is not religion's fault that these individuals twist doctrine to suit their various inhuman needs. The fact is that, throughout history, people have been scared of those that are different and unwilling to understand why they are so different. Then, later on, when something unpleasant has happened, people have looked for answers and someone to place the blame on so that they can be dealt with to fix the unpleasantness. Religion just got roped into this mentality.

I've spent a lot of time writing this, mainly because I felt all I was doing was rambling inanely without really having a point. As a result, I am aware that this whole blog is probably pretty crap. But my point, considering it is probably completely lost, is that if the events of this week should teach us anything, it is that we are still completely blinded by the idea of religion, whether we believe in it or not. It always seems to inspire controversy because it is so easily brought up in any uncomfortable situation in society. But religion is a scapegoat, an easy explanation for something that is much more complicated and difficult for us to accept; that the human race has some serious issues and will always find someway of hating somebody else. In reality, religion is not out to harm people. It's the people who follow it blindly who cause all the problems.

The moral of this story, then; always question the crazy zealot who talks to God.

M-m-m-music

I have to work, so this may well be brief.

Though the digital age is quite wonderful in the way it gives us high-definition Television and films on discs, I can't help but feel it has robbed me of something wonderful. As I have been so recently buried in the amazing new Gorillaz album and so have been attached to my trusty iPod at any time when not attached to my desk, a laptop or my girlfriend, I have been made aware of something that has seemingly gone the way of the dodo with the slow passing of both the Cassette and the Compact disc: the playlist.

Music has been in my life FOREVER. I have vague memories of the joys of putting my Dad's stereo on full blast, air-guitaring my 8 year old heart out to the joys of AC/DC, Pink Floyd and Status Quo, or sitting in the back of the car in a heady daze of melodies and licks as the car tape player ran through one of the infinite number of tapes my Dad made for the countless holidays to Dartmoor or, at more exotic times, France. As I grew up I would start to make up my own tapes, hovering eargerly over the pause button as each song drew to a close. And then shouting when I realised I'd timed it wrong and the song still had another choras repeat to go through. But I loved it. Playlisting became my craft. I would slave away at a tape recorder like Elves reforging a broken sword. And this continued, seemingly without end. But it seems I was wrong.

I don't remember the last time I made a playlist. Actually, it was probably the CD I made for my girlfriend as an attempt to get her more into music. I still wait to see if it worked. That my girlfriend is not as into music as I am may have a small part to play in my lessening playlist creation, but I think I lay the blame more at the rise of the mp3. My final attempt at installing a similar love of music into my girlfriend was the gift of an iPod shuffle. In one swoop I had eliminated the need for playlists and mixtapes/CDs. With the space on even the smallest iPod being enough to contain at least 100 songs and with the birth of "shuffle" on every mp3 player and CD player removing the need for any detail in a play order, playlists have become obsolete. I feel like a part of me has died.

You can, of course, build playlists for the biger iPods but it feels like cheating. Building a playlist for yourself is less special if you have all the music on your iPod anyway and it isn't like you can give it to anyone. Plus, what with the internet allowing us to get songs from any number of resources, people will just rather get recommendations and download them themseves. And so, for me and others like me; who would come to life making sure each song complimented the others and ran smoothly into the following track like it was properly mixed, there is no outlet to make our work worthwhile. The only thing I can think of is radio. But it's not exactly easy for the average person to get a radio show. And not that many people listen to the radio anyway. All there is left is for us to go unto the west; our work done and our usefulness spent, and fade into history like vinyl and affordable gig tickets.

(If you would like a playlist forged by a skilled music-elf; please send £2, or whatever you can spare, to The Grey Havens, c/o Elrond, via Rivendell, Middle Earth. Thank You)

A Query and a Qualm

I have already alluded to my regular travelling habits and how much they frustrate me, but I’ve never fully commented on the gripes I harbour as they are experienced. But, now I have my travelling friend (who I call Wallace, as the model name is, quite strangely, Eee) I am free to comment first hand on the tribulations that travelling into and out of the City of London hold for me.

Firstly, it is a really hot day. In the past, this heat has been tempered by the amazing air conditioning to be found on the c2c rail service that Essex has as its pride and joy of public transport. Sadly, since recently moving, I have had to resort to the more expensive, yet sadly quite inferior, National Express service into London as well as out of it and up to Cambridge. As such, I find myself in quite concerning temperatures with poxy little windows that allow for next to no breeze. You may be able to understand why this has perhaps affected my current outlook on life. But I shall persevere.

The main grief I wish to air through this entry is related to the nature of the other individuals forced to suffer the same fate as I. In the case of some, like myself, they seem to be travellers for the sport of it. Polo-shirted and baseball-capped, with a hint of old age about them, it is not unusual to find these people sat on trains. They, as such, bring me much joy. I turn my attention, instead, to the typical majority of train passengers to be found escaping London. Now, bear in mind that, at the time of my boarding the train, it was not even quarter to five on a Tuesday. And yet, as on so many other occasions like this one, a vast number of seats are taken up with aggressively groomed people wearing either: a shirt and tie, a suit or some female equivalent of professional dress. Hordes of them, on every single train from London, sat comfortably, half way through a paper with no apparent look of recent exertion, to the extent of looking practically restful. Well before five o’clock. So my question is this: WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU NOT AT WORK?!

I was always led to believe that work in the City involved working until five o’clock at a minimum. Bankers, Financiers and other economically working creatures that fester within the central City were cursed with an inescapable responsibility to be at their desks until the golden hour of Five. But no, turns out that; despite a huge global recession and a world economy on its knees, despite the hard-earned wages of teachers (no I am NOT biased) and nurses being diverted to assure banks could survive its own over-eagerness to throw more money than could be concieved by the human mind down the toilet, the majority of the bastards are now even having the cheek to skip out half an hour early just so they can get a seat on a train. And these people get bonuses?! For shame financial industry. Most jobs I’ve come across, skipping out early would be a small step towards the sack. So not only have they taken taxpayers’ money at an unparalleled scale, they are also cheating us out of our seats.

And, on top of this, these exploits all fall within peak hours for rail transport. Yes, it is the way of the railways as a whole to increase fares around the times that people go into and out of work. An amazing display of shameless profiteering, there. If only these increased prices actually went towards improving services, maybe I wouldn’t be so dismayed. Sadly, as mentioned previously, they really have not. I assume, therefore, that the reason that so many business people may be found skiving off of the last half an hour of their daily grind is so they can avoid the increased fares. So I beg the question, how can you warrant operating a peak time system if a huge number of people seek any way they can to avoid it anyway and when the peak times tend to mean overcrowding and so resulting in a highly uncomfortable journey? Sadly, I have no alternative, so am stuck putting up with this backwards business scheme until I can afford a car. But for those that can travel with alternative methods, it is hard to see why they should even consider using the trains with such poor conditions for consumers.

But as my journey comes to an end and the woman next to me finally gets off so I can stretch out my legs and have space to write, I can start to calm down. I will be home soon, where I can relax and put the inconsiderate wasters out of my mind once more. Hopefully, I may be able to dwell on more important or intellectual matters before long and write them down in a much more reasoned and balanced manner.

But for now, I hope the gits get what's coming to them.

On the Internet

Being unemployed (or technically self-employed, but at the current rate that my freelancing is going I may as well not be) and after three years as a student, I have had more than a lot of exposure to three distinct things: My bed, daytime television and the Internet. Or, more specifically: sleep, Top Gear and Facebook. Because there is only ever Top Gear on television during the day, to be replaced by Friends at about 6 o'clock. As such, it has often been that I turn away from the episode of Top Gear I have seen four hundred times before and check up on what is going on on the Internet, i.e. Facebook. And I have recently come to the conclusion that the Internet is a lie.

Apparently, I'm not alone. At a recent conference in Oxford to discuss the Internet, a Mr Zuckerman told what I assume was a packed audience that the Internet has not lived up to potential, that it has failed to bring the world closer together. Rather than being used as a tool to cross cultural and political barriers and create a highly cosmopolitan virtual world, what has happened instead is that more and more emphasis has been placed, thanks to the Internet, on restricting an outward view towards the world in favour of focusing more on local issues and cultures. What has cropped up, it seems, is a virtual apartheid, consisting of little pockets of web space taken up by a certain cultural demographic with very little interaction between them. From my own personal experience, I wonder what has taken him so long to realise this.

I don't know if it's just because of my limited outlook or creativity but my use of the Internet tends to consist entirely of reading comics, checking up on updates from BBC news and sport, playing a game every now and then and, most of all, checking Facebook for what everyone else is doing. Once in a while I may check Youtube for something interesting or for music clips but, otherwise, that's about it. Now as I said, this may just be me. I would personally believe that I am fairly curious but must admit to a lack of effort in terms of following most things up. When I do, it tends to be the Internet which does provide the answers to my queries. But I can't help but wonder how much this curiosity has been quashed by social networking sites. My curiosity is now more focused on how the people I used to know are doing or, since I am now on Twitter, what news there is on the work in progress for the new Doctor Who script. And social networking just gives us things. Links to videos, news sites or pictures of things happening. So the mentality has shifted away from "I should really find out what is going on out there." to "Why bother looking? It comes to me anyway." Obviously, this is not true of everyone, or there would be no links on Facebook but either way, this does definitely show a trend of voluntary isolation. People are content to see what is put in front of them, rather than find out what is out there.

There is a definite Internet society. Those who keep on the very pulse of the world and spread the word to all of us. The flash mob generators, the "meme" builders, who can take a strange, isolated piece of media and turn it into a phenomenon. But what benefit does this provide to the Internet as a tool for knowledge? How much do we gain from knowing that "All your base are belong to us"? Later in his speech Zuckerman pays tribute to those who, in China, take the effort to translate Western newspaper articles into Chinese so that the country may have some exposure to the world outside, presumably at great personal risk and then bemoans the lack of any equivelent within the Western world, bringing us the news from China. Instead, our concentrations lie on the exploits of celebrities, or capturing some slice of "legend" with a ridiculous internet meme. It is the lack of integration that has been the great failure of the Internet.

So often it is that I stare at my computer screen with an air of desperation. That I get so little from something that really promises so much. But is this the problem? We are given a way to learn anything we want. To pick from the eternal buffet of knowledge and delve into the wide, diverse world. How are you supposed to start? Where do you begin when faced with everything? To start with the familiar is the obvious first step, not because we do not wish to venture into the unknown world but because, quite frankly, it's hard to find things if you don't know what they are. Give the human brain infinity and it will explode. So we start at the familiar and hope something new crosses our path. And this is the internet now; waiting on social network sites hoping for some insight from those with different viewpoints. A world sitting around a virtual table hoping somebody else comes up with something good to say, whilst the kids run around everybody's ankles shouting incomprehensible nonsense about ceiling cats.

Zuckerman hopes for a reworking of the Internet with translation protocols and virtual guides that can direct people through things that are unknown. This sounds like he's proposing a TV travel documentary through the internet. Maybe Michael Palin is free. As for me, I think I'm just going to go outside more.

News news news

I figured people may be genuinely interested in what I have planned in the near future (I don't know why. But I've always been one for bouts of delusional self-grandeur) so here is a small cop out from writing an actual blog entry as to what is happening.

Some of the more astute of you may have noticed the new box to the right of the page. I just want to confirm that you are not going mad and it does say Twitter. I have joined the world of online celebrity stalking in a bid to make myself seem more of a celebrity (yep, more self-grandeur). But if you do wish to follow my everyday thoughts and movements, as well as keep an eye on the things that I find that make me laugh, then I think there is a link under the widget thing to my Twitter page.

Of course, as of now, the only people who read this blog have either known me for years anyway and have seen already that I am Twittering, or have come because they saw the link on Twitter anyway. So a small bit of "non-news" there.

"What else?" you may ask. Or more likely not. Well, in terms of my actual life, very little. I'm still trying to get a job in Cambridge (or anywhere vaguely linked to Cambridge as of late) but no-one is letting me in, so for now it's carrying on working for peanuts as I build up a writing cred.

I have access to an unbearably portable laptop now and, as such, will more likely than not be making it my own personal travelling companion until I stop needing to travel or I can afford to get my own one. What this means for the blog is uncertain. Either, I'll be able to work on blogging at a more regular basis as I sit and dwell on the nightmare that is National Express trains or I'll be distracted more and more from blogs as I begin to focus more on those stories I've been meaning to work on. Hopefully I'll hit somewhere in the middle.

My ideal plan is to take this blog a bit further. Try and get some regular things going. Maybe reviews when I can afford to buy new things. At the moment, I'm struggling to find things that I can write about regularly that would be interesting and I'm always open to suggestions. And I have also considered a webcomic, but my lack of drawing ability may be my downfall there.

So, to sum up, the news is essentially, I got Twitter. Whoo! Hopefully for the next time I want blog filler I'll actually have something of note to say.

I love you all.

Except you. You are just liked.

God Bless America!

I have a new guilty pleasure. I blame unemployment entirely, but it is here now and I think it may be to stay. It is a rather minor television programme, found all the way down the Sky Planner along with Homes Under the Hammer and the various channels that show nothing but World War II documentaries. On the Good Food channel, usually in blocks of two or more episodes at once, dwells a small televisual treat entitled "Man VS Food" and it is just amazing. In a country absolutely swamped by cookery programmes and exposés on food and eating on general, all of which tend to lean towards Michelin star style cookery, it is such a shake up to find a programme as completely insane as this one is. And who do we thank for this crude, nearly pornographic food adventure. Yes, of course, the Americans. And so I do now thank them from the very bottom of my heart.

The premise of the show is fairly simple: One man, one giant of a food warrior, traverses the huge stretch of land that is the United States of America exploring all that the nation has to offer in terms of eating establishments. The twist is that all the restaurants he visits are the kind of kitsch, fun-themed type places that America is famous for. And, as such, the food on order is less "haute cuisine" and more an experiment in testing the limits of structural mass. If you have ever visited the quite superb website "This Is Why You're Fat" (http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/) and perused through the gallery of delights posted there, you'll have a fair idea of the kind of food I'm talking about. Big, messy and probably lethal monuments of decadence, typically full of cheese.

Anyway, the presenter, Adam Richman, visits a few of these diners each episode, climaxing in an all-conquering gastronomic challenge and the basis for the idea of Man against Food. The dishes in question are either sickeningly large in size; such as the sixteen inch long, six pound burrito in Las Vegas, or are so hot they could power small towns; such as the "Fire in your hole" chicken dish from somewhere in California. Typically, these are accompanied with some kind of prize and honour and that's pretty much the show. A thirty-minute insight into middle America and the quite bizarre food practices that rage throughout the land.

So what makes this series so good? Aside from the comical foods that are uncovered each episode to a range of reactions from guilty salivation to straight out revulsion, it is pretty fun to watch the guy take on and struggle through these mammoth food challenges that are put in front of him each time. Also, it's nice to have really genuine approaches to how food should be. Regardless of how ridiculous the result, you do feel that, behind each of the "day-to-day" dishes that he introduces, there is a real connection to just serving food as what it is; a big messy luxury that should just taste good and be fun, as well as getting your money's worth, in contrast to the more refined culinary shows which often feel like they know what's best and that they need to tell us what is good. In a way, Man VS Food is more about how we should just enjoy food and not try and over think it, whereas more traditional cookery programmes are more of a battle as to making food be art, which it isn't, really.

But what I really find best about Man VS Food is that, in it's insane way, it completely captures the spirit of America. Where, on the face of it, you may just see an 20 foot long sandwich filled with 18 burgers, 30 slices of cheese, two types of bacon, half a chicken and a portion of extra spicy chili (I made this up, but it wouldn't surprise me if I saw it on there), if you look deeper, really deep, into what that sandwich is, you can see just what America is about. That sandwich is a symbol, an act of defiance against the perceived limitations of sandwiches. Against the perceived limitations of ANYTHING. And that's what America is. That's what the American Dream has always been. It is looking at what there already is and proclaiming, as loudly and, maybe, as obnoxiously as possible; "Fuck that! Lets make it eight times better and paint it bright neon and then make it fly!" That sandwich is America standing up to the world and telling it that, quite frankly, the world just isn't trying hard enough when it comes to sandwiches.

This becomes even more true with the food challenges we are shown. That there are so many episodes, each with at least one restaurant with a challenging food on the menu, shows that food challenges are part of the American culture. That every one of these diners has the belief that they need a beast of a dish so that they can stand out in some way from the rest of the world, as well as calling out the wannabe Food Heroes to prove themselves truly worthy. And I think this is just fantastic! There is clearly something insane about it, but the underlying driving force of it all is that desire to leave a mark; to have, in some small way, shouted out to the world that you were there. It's the mentality that built skyscrapers, put men on the moon, moved Chicago brick by brick and made a hot sauce out of a ton of Habanero chilies, chili flakes, Cajun spices and Ghost chili essence.

It's all insane. No-one would ever have thought to do things like this. Not many would even think they should be done. But, dammit, they did do these things. And they're proud of it and rightly so. Because any nation that strives to take the very perceivable limits of human ability and shred them into confetti, regardless of how impractical the result may end up, is gonna be onto a winner. So here's to the USA; you may make some completely bat-shit crazy food that I would never, ever want to eat, but damn if it isn't hugely impressive anyway!

Panic on the streets of bloody everywhere

In the daily course of my larking about in Cambridge, I often hear people screaming, "OH DEAR GOD SAVE US!!!" and I often wonder why. As they run; fleeing some as yet unseen menace, I do not notice any flames upon their bodies, nor do I see the swarm of giant killer bees that could evoke such a reaction. You can imagine my confusion, I am sure, at the sight of massed hordes, taking flight through such a typically peaceful city centre in such a wild and panicked manner. It is only when I spot the nearby newspaper that I begin to fathom the potential catalyst to such a betrayal of the typical English fortitude. For you see, it cannot be helped but to be noticed that there are an awful lot of newspapers who do try to maintain a rather dramatic license to their daily allotment of news stories. As if the sheer, cold, hard face of fact wasn't exciting enough, a story needs to have a chilling undercurrent, intended to still the very hearts of the stoutest of fellows and arouse much panic in the minds and bodies of each reader. And so, such mobs of people, turned child-like in their amassed terror, become all too explainable. After which, it is all too common to join them in flight.

But stop! Right now! No, not another step. Why do we cower in fright from this collection of typeface and photography. Surely, such terrors cannot be so. In recent times we have been invited to quake in huddled fright from the population of foxes, lest they stalk up to our doors and swipe the babes from our arms. But are we really in such danger from these urban beasts tat we should take up torch and pitchfork once again to drive them from this sainted Isle as did Patrick drive the snakes from Ireland. It seems a little rash. Never before have I seen any fox in mask and cowl attempt to steal upon every dwelling purely to feast upon the children that live within. Nor do I recall seeing any fox with the opposable digits required for successful operation of a door handle so as to achieve any such kidnappary. It is not really that often that I see a fox at all. So why panic? Surely, the recent occurrence involving this fox and these children is simply a freak one; exacerbated, presumably, by misfortune of the most extreme nature. So lets keep calm, have a cup of tea and make sure you don't leave your children covered with seasoning and next to any open doors.

But, seemingly, there is profit to be made in fear mongering. Let us not forget the ever organised armies of bacterium that reside for as far as can be observed by the human eyeball. Our homes will never be safe should we allow such microscopic invasion to go unabated. The only course of action is to buy all sorts of chemicals and solvents to wipe the forces of cellular evil from our surfaces and chopping boards. Damnedable bacterial scum. Trying to kill us with stealth and espionage and whatnot.

But wait. What is this now? Ya-kult. Yakult. I see. It's a health drink thing. Sort of like yoghurt. And it contains... bacteria? Well this is outrageous. Here I am buying all these volatile chemicals to keep my house free of the little blighters and here you are, trying to sell me a bottle of bacteria that I am supposed to just invite into my stomach. How very dare you? Say what? It's good for me. There are bacteria... inside me?! And they help keep me healthy. Well how can that be? Who am I to believe?!

This little dramatic piece was intended to show how the evolution of fear in the media can lead to confusion and inaccuracy. I hope that came across well. I did rather enjoy the bit with the bacteria. But to sum up, advertising fear is misleading. We have had years of cleaning products telling us that germs and bacteria need to be wiped out or we will suffer horrible, life-threatening illnesses when, in fact, without many germs and bacteria we would be in a lot more trouble. Bacteria help us develop a strong immune system and help us in our day to day lives in many ways but, thanks to these adverts, we have people that are afraid to touch anything for fear of contracting a disease that, quite frankly, is unlikely to strike you.

Although, you should obviously wash your hands after taking a dump. That's just common sense.

I'm not bitter or angry at all... no no no...

I'd really like to write an ironic slasher comedy where the cast is made up entirely of health and safety freaks and "life gurus" who are all too willing to tell us that we're "doing things wrong" whilst lording it over the rest of us thanks to an ungodly worship of them by the media classes. Those people that are so helpful and bless-ed with wisdom that they have to be guests on Trisha Goddard and other shows of that banal and fairly horrific nature. Maybe Charlie Brooker could help. He'd enjoy it I reckon/hope.

Picture this; a group of the most admired of these self-styled gurus that are invited to give their verdicts on a new commune developed to be completely cut off from the outside world and completely free of dangers within. They all marvel at the excessive CCTV cameras, the soft padded ground surfaces which will never crack and the complete lack of conkers. They moan with freakish delight at the numerous signs pointing out the blindingly obvious whilst at the same time consisting of now sharp edges or corners. It is a bubble, protecting its inhabitants from everything, keeping them from life and wrapping them in cotton wool. Which is, incidentally, what most of the walls are made of.

Needless to say, the "experts" are overjoyed, and take up immediate residence to fully discover the delights of this little pocket of safe in a world of shadowy dangers and ghostly frights. The night falls, the residents chat idly about potential projects in "enhancing" the world for the better, such as ensuring all eyes on teddy bears are replaced with a much softer substance. Gradually, so as not to shock or disturb anyone, a calm, friendly voice is heard over the acceptable audible level speakers inviting them to learn that the commune has been secured for reasons of safety, as something outside had tripped the heebie-jeebie sensors. The residents are assured, and continue there plans to help the lives of everyone, whether they like it or not.

Sadly, due to safety measures insisting that nobody could possibly be injured in securing the commune, the danger managed to sneak in. Probably about half an hour before the gates actually lock. Regardless, someone or something is now in the compound. An agent of irony, looking suitably comic as befits a slasher movie. I'll wait to meet up with Charlie to discuss the finer points. Needless to say, shit is about to go down, as the intruder approaches the hapless help-merchants.

And then, the usual slasher fare. Noises are heard. The idiotically foolhardy individual goes out to check, and doesn't last long. He meets a notoriously sticky and ironic end. But suddenly the danger is at the door. And through the various safety features included within any residence, finds its way in through the door and the remaining residents scatter, only to be gradually picked off in differing ways caused by the safety features within the compound. Again, Charlie and I will go over it in finer detail closer to the time. I would, however, quite like one of these scenes to involve one of the victims to be in a car, and have the murderer in his headlights. He tries to run him down, but thanks to a set of sensors around the car warning of upcoming hazards and their control over the cars breaks, the car stops just infront of the villain who promptly dispatches the driver by thumping the car, deploying the airbag, and then finishing them off as they struggle to release the extra safe seatbelt.

And it comes down to the last victim; cornered helplessly by the killer after finally being chased down, and the reveal. The removal of the mask. The Scooby-Doo moment. And who is under the mask but... well that would be telling wouldn't it. You'll just have to wait and see.

Add in Stephen Fry for some narrating and Nick Frost or Simon Pegg as the guy who develops the commune and I think that's everything you need for a hit British Comedy. Constant references to Safety Dance by Men in Hats and other appropriately titled songs for the soundtrack are, obviously, a must. Oh, and maybe throw in one of the Harry Potter kids for good measure. I'm sure Charlie will be able to spot anything else that I've missed.

I hope he sees this... I'd love to know what he thinks.

Something a bit more me... maybe

My recent penchants for personal blogging has led me to a greater interest in the world of meaningless but nonetheless entertainingly distracting cultural affairs pieces the likes of which you will find adorning any news website. Or in fact any website by the looks of it. After getting drawn in by Dom Joly's fairly frequent posts on Facebook (because that is what social networking is for; pretending we're on close terms with the people we see on television) I have begun to lose myself every now and then in the strange world of the opinion piece. And you do learn a lot of not very useful but ultimately mind-altering things.

These mini-epiphanies are never going to make you suddenly abandon all your previously held beliefs and follow the word of these quasi-journalists word-for-word, but they do have the power to produce a change of opinion from "meh..." to the slightly more inflectual "... oh really..." Such sounds are obviously meaningless on paper, but I hope I have got across the general idea. Maybe I'll demonstrate them if you ever see me in the street.

But all this opinion observation creates a very obvious yet oft ignored question; 'What do I think?' Now I'm sure many of you will scoff at this, as anyone else who has partaken of the delights of journalistic blogs will doubtless have noticed that beneath a large proportion of these (not mine, though, I have noticed) will be a long list of responses where people have decided to offer up their views on these opinions, and you may have even commented like this yourself. This surely, then, shows that people know what they think as they are telling us. But I wish to suggest that this is not necessarily as clear as might be thought.

You see, opinion is a very strange concept. We often cling to it as a defense of outlandish statements that are either bizarre, unfounded or, in the worst instances, hurtful. But where does it really come from? It seems to me to be a rather 'chicken or egg' question. We can be personally inclined to follow a course of action because we believe that is the right thing to do, but then it could be that we think it is the right thing to do because our minds could not accept doing otherwise. And thus a circle starts up and grows and grows and someone gets labelled as 'opinionated'. But other factors could be at play here.

I have already mentioned the ability of the opinion of others to influence the opinions of others. Consider how much you are exposed to the opinions of others in just a single day and it becomes clear that opinion may well be in a constant state of flux. Whilst there will undoubtedly be cases where you strongly agree or disagree, which will probably cause very little change, there will also be cases where opinions present a totally new viewpoint of 'fact' that will influence your 'opinion' in some way. This has happened since we were young, and so a whole lifetime of these little influences may well be the underlying cause of any opinion driven line of thought. So, therefore, we come back to this question; 'What do I think?'

Because now the 'I' in that posing question is in doubt. Am 'I' the result of my own mind, or is what I think merely the result of years of the thoughts of others building our mindset? How can we be really sure that the opinion we perceive is one that is finely crafted by our individual grey matter or one which has simply been handed to us by an outside scriptwriter? It's certainly become difficult to be sure, especially nowadays where an infinite stream of opinion is being presented to us by everyone and their dog. Even the Page 3 girl, with breasts exposed and modesty abandoned, now has a small section devoted to her opinion of world matters. What room, then, is left for our own thoughts?

So, that question again. 'What do I think?' The answer is not about a response to what we hear about an event, but to what actually evokes these responses. Our thoughts are always going to be influenced by others, but how far does this go back? Is the human race simply a continuous copy of those who came before? As we learn more and more about the world, it makes sense that there will be less and less that can be new, and this is something which is true for every area of culture.

Maybe it is just that opinion is at a premium; that there are only so many ways in which people can think and we have exhausted them all. Douglas Adams' notion of the Earth being a supercomputer intended to uncover the question of Life, the Universe and Everything amusingly springs to mind. Perhaps we are simply working towards that inevitable conclusion and, maybe, we're not all that far away. But then, what do I know?

Do you have an opinion? Tell us what you think through whatever medium is nearest to you right now. Or maybe, use all of them!

On discussions with polar opposites...

So, by the end of the day we may finally have some form of resultant decision from the endless talking that has been going on regarding the formation of government. News viewing figures may very well drop rapidly and one way or the other, people will be unhappy. But life will go on I'm sure. Hopefully...

Now, there has been a lot said about different arrangements and possibilities and problems with these various possibilities and problems with policies and overall, there's not really been any actual advancement in clarity with anything. This is sad, because usually that is what news broadcasters are supposed to do. But I suppose, in reality, there isn't a lot anyone can do but theorise as there really isn't a surefire way this can go. Anything that happens is likely to be rather temporary and we should all gear up for another election within a year or two.

And this in itself is sad, because it would be fairly nice to see a success from whatever coalition arises. Especially if the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition succeeds, as what more ammunition could the Lib Dems want to support PR than the example of successful governments where two parties that are fairly disparate actually bury their respective axes to grind and bandy together to help the country recover and succeed. Sadly, I worry that the Tories are too petty to try and give in to the middle ground enough to get on with anyone, but they are the party that must have government formed around them for many reasons. I'm sure a lot of people wont see why, but bear with me and I'll try and straighten it out.

First of all, Nick Clegg has made it very clear throughout campaigning that the right to govern is determined by the support of the highest number of people. And he is right. And no matter how much a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems may be favourable to the majority of us, if we start undermining the concept of an election then we start to lose touch with democracy and instead begin the slippery slide into something resembling Stalinism or Mugabism. If that even exists yet. The people have a right to have their voices heard, and a chosen government should be arranged to suit the needs of the majority.

Secondly; Labour are clearly in a mess right now, and should really be looking to simply slink off to the opposition benches, lick their wounds, and start the process of pointing out every single thing the Conservatives do which goes against the public good. For now I will not look to presume any inevitability to this occurring, but I wont be surprised if it does. But with Gordon Brown resigning, no matter how much this could lead to Lib Dem support, it still wouldn't be democratic to suddenly allow a completely new leader take the reigns of the country straight away without a show of public support.

There has been the argument that any election is not a vote for a leader but for a party, but the fact is that when a new leader is elected, that party undergoes a change, and so the party that may have won seats and gained votes is not the same as the one that exists after a change in leader. So for now, a Labour led government is not democratically viable.

It is also not really very numerically viable. Whereas the Tories and The Lib Dems alone would easily form a majority, Labour would essentially need the support of every other smaller party to gain the majority. Now again, whilst there may well be a large uniting force determined to keeping the Conservatives from power, this is not enough to form a solid government, which must be the priority right now, even if only for a year or so, so that some work can be done on the long process of restoring financial parity. Asking two parties to negotiate is not too unreasonable. Asking them all to negotiate is a bit unlikely.

And this need for decisiveness is why we cant just leave the Tories on their own. Were they to try to go it alone, they would most likely just keep getting out voted and we'd be having another election before you know it and the likelihood as I see it is that people would just vote Tory to get this over and done with. Therefore, if the Lib Dem supporters were to simply bite the bullet and accept that; providing their influence will be felt in decision making and providing they can distance themselves from being a scapegoat for failed policies, a working with the Conservatives may well work for their benefit, and will at least limit any Tory policy that works against the larger, less well off part of the public. If successful, this could see a rise in the support for the Lib Dems after showing that they can contribute to a successful government, and they may gain a greater support in their pursuit of a fairer electoral system after seeing how they can be successful. And what's more, they could limit any future gains in support for the Tories if they can show themselves to have played a big enough part in forming laws.

Now obviously, the big problems that arise when you try and merge two quite distinctly contrasting policies together like the Tories and the Lib Dems, it's going to mean a lot of people will be unhappy with the compromise. Firstly I would like to directly respond to these people by suggesting they grow up and get some perspective past their own selfish desires. Secondly, I would suggest that what may happen is that a show of compromise is made to pander to doubters from the other party but in reality, has about as much substance as Katie Price.

To back this up I wish to close on looking at the "very generous offer" of a referendum on the alternative vote system by the Tories. Now, aside from the fact that AV is about as far away from PR as the current system is, the real depth of the Tory offer is that they are willing to put the idea of changing the political system to a public vote. They have not said they will support this vote and they have not said they will not actively campaign against it. Which leads me to think that they have put this offer on the table knowing full well the public may not vote for it, being that it is so far away from being what we really want as well as knowing that they can quite easily buy the support of the Murdoch empire to convince people it is bad. This isn't surprising on its own, but when we consider that a discussion between the Tories and the Lib Dems is going to be full of these "generous offers" I can quite easily see the Lib Dems getting chewed up and spit out if Clegg isn't very careful and very clever.

However, this could still yet again work to the Lib Dems advantage, as they can then show how dishonest the Tories have been and how they were not interested in the spirit of progressive democracy and then press for a new election, knowing that they have already got a discussion in place with Labour after the talks of the last few days, that Labour could easily rally more support from their new leader, and that the Tory bubble had burst after any petty unwillingness to work constructively with another party. Obviously, this is only one example of what could happen, and is the work of a feverishly left-wing and democratic mind set and optimistic to say the least. But success in politics is, sadly, knowing how to play the game to get what you want. As long a Clegg is sincere, however, that may just coincide with what we want for once as well.

Some perspective...

Having finally finished off my exciting expose on debt collection agencies which I shan't bore you with on here, I wish to add my insight into the current events regarding the recent election and the results that have us all wondering "... so, what happens now?"

First of all, i wish to comment on the bizarre practice of not allowing people to vote. This seems to somewhat invalidate the result to me, as clearly a lot of these people were present at the polling station before the closing time of 10 o'clock but due to the truly British past-time of being boorishly punctual, many of these people were refused their democratic right. In this country this is outrageous and should result in severe action against those with the most severe limitations of foresight and common sense to allow this to happen. However, to those that were turning up with minutes to spare; you did have a full 15 hours to vote. What the hell were you doing the rest of that time?

But now on to the results and; surprise, surprise it led to a hung parliament and surprise, surprise a number of parties got utterly shafted by this archaic voting system. Now, whilst I can't hide my delight at the news that the BNP not only failed to gain a parliamentary seat but also lost pretty much their entire council representation over the whole country in one fell swoop, we do find the entire spectrum of political parties other than "the big two" are pretty poorly represented despite a fairly good showing in actual votes. No surprise to learn, then, that today saw the first of what I assume could be many outright demonstrations seeking to encourage the abandonment of 'first-past-the-post politics.' Sadly, this could well come to nought.

You see, the one thing that a certain group of politicians took from this is that the Conservative party gained the highest number of seats and votes, and so are claiming themselves the victors by technical knockout. Depressing though this may be it currently leaves the nation waiting on the edge of their seat for news from Nick 'The Kingmaker' Clegg as to whether he is to accept David Cameron's offer of "cooperation" in the future government. No doubt Clegg's decision to allow Cameron to make the first deal will be to the dismay of many of his supporters, but I, for one, am personally impressed with the man's integrity to stand by his key principles in allowing the most supported party the first crack at playing Happy Cabinets. I do, however, join the long list of people who are skeptical that such a coalition will take place this side of Hell freezing over. Mainly because Cameron will never even let the thought of electoral reform being on the table even fleetingly dance across his mind but, also, because Clegg knows, like many of us do, that Cameron is a conniving, arrogant bastard who would sooner let a commoner touch his shoe than change the way elections work and damage his prospects for further holding on to power.

Because when the Conservative supporters complain about electoral reform reducing the likelihood that any party gain an overall majority they actually mean that PR will prevent the Tories from doing what they want. And the Tories don't do compromise well. Another reason why a coalition won't happen. But the fact is, the current system is a cheat. OK, it might mean that a party can pass rules without fear of any opposition, but considering that no party has ever achieved over 50% of the vote since the end of the war (and possibly further back, but there's only so much research I'm willing to do) then surely, statistically, the majority of people may not actually have wanted to put that party in that position in the first place. In fact it can't be too unreasonable to say that, in truth, more people didn't want that party in that position. And yet there they are, changing the rules as they wish without really conferring with anyone else. If you ask me, that sounds less like democracy and more like a dictatorship hidden under the guise of a democracy. Clever eh? And strangely, the only party to straight out refuse a change is the Conservative Party. If that doesn't reflect their core beliefs I don't know what does.

But, some numbers. The Tories are claiming they have the support of the biggest chunk of the country. Sadly, they are wrong. Voter turnout was about 30 million, roughly two-thirds of the voting population if BBC stats are accurate, and I hope they are. So there were about 15 million people who did not vote. Most, presumably, by choice. As for the Tories, they received about 10 and a half million votes. Therefore, the highest supported political idea was not Conservatism but Apathy. Roughly a third of the population decided that there was no point making that short walk to the polling station. Clearly, something is wrong with the system, otherwise everyone would be voting. Clearly something needs to change. And yet the Conservatives, with all their harping on about change, have fallen at the first hurdle by refusing to offer any real positive steps on making this change in this clearly poorly supported electoral system.

The next few weeks and months could be a struggle. We can presume that the Lib Dems will not get offered anywhere near enough to make siding with the Tories worthwhile. Whilst at the same time we can possibly assume that Clegg will most likely feel uncomfortable working with someone so unpopular as Brown, so it is difficult to see where we go from here. The possibility of a Lib/Lab pact is somewhat promising if still not a secure enough government. Similarly, if the Tories are sincere about giving the Lib Dems genuine influence then we may be seeing the start of some actual progress in democracy, but without the electoral reform to back up this sudden willingness of the Tories to share power it is unlikely to go anywhere. A little like this blog in a way, because there is no real conclusion, other than to counter the Conservative arguments that the people have spoken in there favour, because the reality is over three quarters of the public chose to not vote Conservative, and nearly two thirds of voters voted against a Conservative government. And yet their opinion is likely to count for nothing in the full face of the Conservative run government which will be deciding their lives for the near future.

It would be nice if somebody important realised this. I could stop talking about it then.

more serious stuff I'm afraid

First off, I wish to apologise in advance for any glaring typos but for some reason an increased amount of typing has led to me, in fact, getting worse at it.

Secondly, I had planned to hold off on this until after the election because I do want to encourage voting in this election as it could be the start of some ACTUAL change in how our country works, provided we head off into a hung parliament like the polls suggest. But it couldn't wait. I really wanted to blog.

Because there is a massive problem in how are country is run. Many blame the voting system, and they do have a fantastic point. There are many online gadgets which will show you just how bad a reflection of public opinion the election system is. But that's not it. There are also those that will argue a case that politicians are untrustworthy, thanks to broken promises and various scandals. Well, that's not quite it either, but it's close. No, the biggest problem is something much more widespread, more integral to the system. The problem is the parties themselves. Their very existence. Their dominant role in governing the other people.

OK, let me clarify with this question: When (if) you go to vote tomorrow, who are you voting for? The direct influence of your vote is to push the recipient of your vote one little step closer to representing your local area in parliament. But is this really what you are thinking about when you chose who to vote for? How much do you really know about the person you put an X next to on the ballot paper? The likelihood is that, unless you have chosen an Independent candidate, you don't know anything about the individual, but are choosing based on the party you wish to be in power after all the votes are counted. I guess this in itself is fair enough, there is a logic that if you like the party as a whole, their candidate is going to share the same values.

But this election has thrown up a further issue. Tactical voting. Because there will be places where your chosen party is the least likely to win, and so you may feel encouraged to vote for the party that you least want to win the election as a whole. But then, how is that supposed to represent your beliefs on how you want the country governed? How do you know that in ensuring your choice for Prime Minister is given the greatest chance to succeed, you are not undermining your local area by voting for someone who will not best represent your interests in parliament? That is the problem with partisan politics. It undermines the importance of the local electorate. So much so, in fact, that in this election there has been a quite dramatic shift away from every day MPs going door to door trying to gain the support of the voters. Instead, such campaigning has been left to the prospective leaders-in-waiting in big, showy, organised events to win people over to "the party". Rather Orwellian, really.

So, back to the BIG question. How much do you know about the person you vote for? As has been evident in this election, there has been a slight lack of clarity regarding the intentions of all of the major parties. Now, considering the undoubtedly bad times that are coming regardless of who is elected, it could be understood that the reason for this is that being clear about policies would be a sure-fire way of losing votes. Except, there is a huge indication that, actually, voters are clearly aware that desperate things have to happen, and would appreciate a more specific list of what these will be so that they can choose who will make things easier or safer for them. This was reflected after the first leaders debate when Nick Clegg was shown to be fresh, new and, above all, honest. His popularity rocketed upwards in the polls and suddenly he was a real contender. Sadly, he bottled it somewhat and resorted to the political type. Spineless, shallow and lacking any real answers (I still think he's the best of the three, before you ask, but he really failed to take full advantage to enforce the idea of change). People clearly just want answers. They want to know what they can expect. They want to vote for policies, not people.

The problem is, politicians just treat us like numbers. They see polls going up and down and try and make themselves appeal as much as possible. Until it has led to this "X-Factor" politics. Every politician tries to set themselves apart from this approach but every single one that does is a hypocrite. And that is all anyone will see them as. And so we come to the real problem. Politicians are so driven by the needs of the party, to maintain party image and to ensure the success of the party and; as a result, themselves, that in the end, policies become a minor concern for politicians underneath boosting the image of their party and bashing the others. This isn't politics. This is just an extension of the schoolboy popularity contests that went on in every public school that these politicians came from. Politics has become about individual ego boosting and parties are just another set of establishments that are too concerned about gaining support and power that they neglect thoughts of progression or flexibility in times of crisis. And this is what will bring the country down.

So yes, this is why our voting system should change to some form of proportional representation, because it will mean your vote matters more and it may encourage more importance of local candidates. An opposition to this is that a majority will be impossible in these situations. But surely that is not the point. Surely the point is that parliament should reflect the opinion and wishes of the country. And this country is rarely ever going to have an overwhelming majority all in favour of the same things. It is the diversity of the country that has provided it its greatest progressions. If we had discussion between the full spectrum of political allegiances we may actually get decisions that reflect the opinions of EVERYONE, not just the richest few or those who need more benefits or those who like public services. Everyone. However, the political system today, being driven by party politics as it is, will never see this as they are too busy striving for the power they have so feverishly fantasised about since lying around lonely in their Eton school beds. So bring on a hung parliament. And screw party lines. We're in charge, make your politicians think about their people first and their own ego trips second.

"So what's the solution?" I hear you scream... well the 6 of you that may read this. But the problem is solutions mean nothing if the people that need to implement it on our behalf are not going to do it if it means disrupting their comfortable, cushy party positions. But the ideal situation would be scrapping political parties and having individuals running for policies that reflect their local area in the national parliament. After this, an impartial arbitrator is elected to direct proceedings in the event of national emergencies whilst having no influence on policy or decisions. Its not perfect yet, I'm still working on it. But anything that will limit any power driven organisations and encourage equal deliberation on the processes of government. That way, the politicians will actually be working for us, rather than us having to choose the best of, quite frankly, an awful bunch.

As for tomorrow, I dunno, vote for whoever. I'm not sure it will make a lot of difference in the long run. The most important thing is to keep involved. If things aren't how you want them, bug your MP, bug your politicians. You voted, make sure you get your vote's worth. If enough people do this then they will realise they have to change. Properly, not just the hollow promise of 'change' that the parties are fighting over the rights to at the moment. And maybe we can get what WE want for once.