The end of the world?

It could be closer than you think!

This particle accelerator thing is fascinating, but not a little terrifying. I mean, sure they've taken safety precautions and stuff, but the fact is that if they knew what was going to happen, there'd be no point in doing the experiment. I for one am quite excited by the idea that sometime this summer we'll all be sucked into a man-made space-time anomaly.

Cool!



Imagine if all we believe to be true about black holes is, in fact, balls. What if we suddenly find ourselves thrust into an alternate universe, complete with marauders, warp drives and enlightened Klingons? What if, on the other side of a black hole, is Star Trek?!

That'd be pretty sweet.

Of course, the cold, hard fact that we might all suddenly find ourselves squished into extremely dense balls of matter is a worry. But on the bright side — we won't notice!

I kind of hope we don't end up with one of these ones though:



It looks a bit… Er…

"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men."

Herman Melville said that, apparently. Tis too true, baby, too true. A largely ignored fact, but still…

Yes, another swifty anti-world bloggette, beginning with this:

"Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed," the statement says. "We can do better."

Oh, if only the southern Baptists were talking about their irrational belief in a Big Man in the sky… Funny how they can accept some evidence, but not other evidence. The testing of faith continues…

"Some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention," the statement says. "But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era's challenges that require a unified moral voice."

I love progress, but it's gonna be a while before these idiots 'fess up to 2,000 years of bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit and Big Men in the sky, The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two…

OK, so we all knew this to be the truth, no matter what John McCain might say. But it's the phrase "First and only study" that bugs me. I sometimes go out and want to buy something, but before I do so I research a little. You know, I try to find out as much as I can about the thing I'm thinking about so I can make sure I get the best thing.

Now, I'm talking about kettles/toasters/hoovers/etceteras, but these people invaded a country before doing ANY research. None. Not a bit. Nada. Nothin'. They knew fucking nothing before they went in there, and it's wonderful that the truth is out — from THE PENTAGON. Definitely people with vested interests in not being wrong, huh?

But yet…

So, why is Bush still in office? Why hasn't Donnie Shitsfeld been brought up on charges? Why haven't the law enforcers, that is police and such, done their job and taken these cunts down?



You can arrest/shoot/whatever some guy with brown skin and/or a turban on no more evidence than a hunch and some bigoted ignorance, but when you KNOW for a FACT that these rich white guys have committed crimes that go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the destruction of the WTC (accepting, for the moment, that this was actually committed by influences outside the U.S.) — what? Nothing? Nothing at all? The knowing MURDER of over 4,000 Americans in pursuit of oil? Is that not enough to justify an arrest?

Meanwhile…

OK, I'm just gonna let that hang, cos you know THEY should.

Weird shit in Holland

Interesting it is, sometimes, to have a snoopy nose around Dutch news. Not a lot happens, in general, but then that's the price you pay for a well-maintained modern society… Funny, when you think about the U.S. Drug Tsar referring to the country's drug policy as 'An unmitigated disaster'. Oh, really? Well then why the no crime?

Er…

Yeah, you see.

The only thing most drug users are doing that's illegal is, well, using drugs! Once you shake that misconception from your wormy brain, it all becomes much clearer.

That's not what I was going to bang on about though, nope.

Dutchnews.nl is a great aul site. Slightly vague on many of the details, not terribly informative on many others and strangely averse to the hyperlink, it is still one of the few ways I can find out what's going on in my new home.

Unfortunately, a lot of it is like THIS, yes… An op-ed about blasphemy. Can you tell we have too much time on our hands here?

Here's another one about a man who was locked up for insulting the queen. I'm confused by this one, not surprisingly given the serious lack of information. OK, so he called her a 'cancer whore' — hardly the most cutting of insults, in the grand scheme of things — but how did he get found out? Who grassed him up? Did he say it to her face?

The story, I think we can all agree, makes no sense whatsoever without this pertinent information. It's a vague anecdote, a bit of hearsay, a random tidbit — definitely not news, without a little more information.

I should probably mention that I didn't get a job with Dutch News cos my Dutch is, as ever, woeful. I'm not bitter, I'm simply pointing out that even someone with no knowledge of Dutch can see that what that story is is bollox.

One more before I go to read some Noam Chomsky or something. Tax Office Head Quits Job On The Side — interesting I thought. The first thing that struck me was, Why are hospitals paying taxes in the first place? Surely income tax, etc, wtvr, goes FROM the public at large and goes TO the hospitals?

Surely?

Again, the major failing of this story is a lack of hyperlinks. You can't beat a good hyperlink in my opinion…

Why do we take this shit, as a species?

Hillary may be slightly better than McCain, or any other Repub. for that matter, but she's still a lying scumfuck. Ah, politicians…

The interesting thing is that, despite having been caught out, red-handed, no doubt about it lying, Hillary is STILL a candidate for the Prez. Eh…

The point is not the thing she lied about, it's the fact that it was such a pointless whopper that you have to ask, If Hill is lying about something like this, what else is she making up?

There have been, since she made up all the sniper shit on Friday, various stories of things she's embellished or else simply made up to make herself look better. A meeting in Belfast City Hall, which never happened. Her opposition to NAFTA, which has come all of a sudden and entirely in reaction to the Obama Factor, since she was one of the biggest champions of it at the time.

I love how she has claimed responsibility for several of the Clinton admin's 'successes', but is distancing herself for NAFTA — even though of all the world crises she's claimed to have solved, this is the only one she was directly involved in… Yes, the one she was involved in starting!

I didn't know so much about NAFTA until I was reading Bill Hicks' most excellent Love All The People, which inspired me to find out more. He mentions NAFTA in a bit from late 1993 — when he was actually about to shuffle off the coil — and says things about 'Selling your lives from under you'. Interestingly, this is the reason the candidates are against it now. Sort of. Kind of. Well, Hill and Barack are both actually in favour, the little corporate whores that they are, but it always sounds good to make anti-NAFTA speeches in states where the effects of NAFTA are most felt — that is, where people's lives were sold out from under them.

My point is this, how can someone (Hillary) who is quite plainly a fucking lair still be in the running for Commander in Chief of the WORLD'S LARGEST ARMY? If she can't be trusted to tell the truth about something so utterly insignificant as whether or not she was shot at in Bosnia, then how can you trust her on health, foreign policy, NAFTA, anything at all?

She's a compulsive liar, you can see from the above video that she's MAKING IT UP AS SHE GOES ALONG.

I have no doubt that B.O. is every bit as duplicitous and untrustworthy as Hillary, but the fact is that she's displaying such a lack of respect for America's collective intelligence (which I maintain must be higher than the shit we see on TV would have us believe. The sleeping giant…) surely shows that she doesn't give a fuck? Surely it shows she definitely can't be trusted?

I really love this "I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else....I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke."
--Hillary Clinton, Interview with KDKA Pittsburgh radio, March 25, 2008. Surely making shit up about being under sniper fire constitutes a little more than 'mispeaking'? Call it what it is, Hill — a fucking lie!

Meh, what's the point anyway? These elections…

Oh, here's another wonderful Hillary The Liar story, which doubles as an Obama The Liar story, regarding a leak from the Canadians on the NAFTA issue. According to, er, both candidates the other made covert contact with Canada to tell them their bluster about NAFTA was just that — political posturing. The story was broken by Hillary's staff, tarring Obama with the liar label. Shortly after this, Ian Brodie [Canadian Chief of Staff] allegedly also discussed musings by Obama's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, saying people from her camp also told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, McCain is making shit up about Iran and Al Qaeda being in bed together. Iran, apparently, is training Iraqi 'insurgents' and sending them back. The only flaw in this particular theory is the fact that it is blatantly untrue — for a great many reasons. Not least of which is this:

"[McCain] stands accused of mixing up Sunnis and Shiites. The liberal ThinkProgress website points out that Iran and al Qaeda represent opposite sides in the Iraqi civil war. Al Qaeda is a Sunni movement while Iran is the world's leading Shiite state (90 percent of Iranians are Shiites). So why should Iran be training Sunni extremists and sending them back into Iraq on suicide missions against Shiites?"

Interesting…

[EDIT] I love this comment from the Think Progress article: "Proof positive that McWar don’t know Shiite about Sunni’s."

No, I'm sure it's not a double standard…

THIS HERE news story's pretty funny.

Basically it's about a guy who was done for encouraging 'discrimination' at an anti-racism rally in A'dam at the weekend. He took speeches made by this joker:



(Holland's favourite racist politician, Geert Wilders, who has made an offensive film, which I may have mentioned before.)

G.W. has spent the last few years mouthing off about how evil Muslims are and how the Koran is an evil book and should be illegal in NL and blah,blahblahblhbldjbhbjhhbhbhbbbbbb…

So, anyway, the guy who got done simply took transcripts of Wilders' rants and replaced 'Islam' and 'Muslim' with 'Judaism' and 'Jew'. This means lots of talk of criminal Jews and the evils of Judaism and such like.

This is funny, of course, because while the 'establishment' tuts and shakes its head when bog-brush head there has a go at them Arabby types, but when someone tries to make a point about the double standard he gets arrested. The Jews have a much better union it would seem.

The whole issue about Wilders' film has gotten quite ridiculous at this stage. Muslims up in arms, Jews up in arms, Christians up in arms — Atheists going, What is wrong with you people?

But the main reason Wilders' influence and ability to cause mischief amazes me so much is because, well, he looks like a pantomime villain, or a James Bond baddie. Look:



How can people take him seriously enough to A. Listen to him in the first place or B. Get offended by him?

How insecure would you have to be?

Ray-slamic Jihad, freedom for fish!

This story raises a few questions… Especially considering seven years ago on a plane flying over the U.S. — sometime in September, I believe, 2001 — several people were able to make cellphone calls with no problem whatsoever as they alerted loved ones to the fact that they had been hijacked.

But… But…

Ah, let's not go there. It's Good Friday, maybe today I'll not scream Conspiracy! or any of that stuff. No, perhaps today I'll even avoid the subject of the crucifixion (cruci-fiction, indeed) of some poor carpenter with New Age leanings.

I am worried about THIS however. Jesus, the rays are really out to get us these days! First Steve Irwin, now this… You know, if it could be proved that these fish had Islamic tendencies the U.S., Australia and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing would have nuked every last ray out of the water. In the process they'd have rendered the rest of the ocean uninhabitable for other marine life and possibly brought about an end to all life on the planet, but they'd have taken care of Business!

Thank Christ fish are atheists.

Here's a Hicksian quote, to put you in a reflective mood on this most religious of holidays:

"Money doesn't buy you anything, it's an illusion. If there was no money on this planet, there wouldn't be any less food. It's a big cocksuck, man, money's time is up. That's what people are realizing, hopefully. The grossest thing about poor people is that they crave money. Everyone should wear blue jeans and three T-shirts and eat beans and rice and break every fucking company, break 'em."

Especially fucking STARBUCKS — what a bunch of cunts.

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips and interest that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction that prevents Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities.

Starbucks spokeswoman Valerie O'Neil said the company planned an immediate appeal of the ruling, calling it "fundamentally unfair and beyond all common sense and reason."

Valerie O'Neil is quite plainly talking out of her arse. Why should management get any of the tips the baristas make? Are they serving coffees? Are they the ones interacting with the customers? Are they the ones earning the fucking tips? No. So fuck 'em.

How anyone can seek to justify taking money from the lowest paid workers and giving it to people higher up the pay grade than themselves boggles the mind.

The fact that Starbucks is planning to appeal sickens me. When will people listen to Bill and STOP BUYING THIS SHIT FROM THESE EVIL FUCKS?

If the coffee was any good I could understand why Starbucks exists, but it isn't, so I can't. And even if it was the best fucking coffee on the planet, HELLOOOOOO! Starbucks!? Is there any more naked and powerful symbol of corporate greed? It's called StarBUCKS for crying out loud! No mention of coffee, "Stars and, uh, Bucks — yeah, that's what our brand's all about!"

Just cos Bob Dylan gave them a slice of his soul does not mean they're nice. Bob Dylan would sell bits of his soul to anyone who offered him a ham sandwich, in much the same way as, say, Gene Simmons might…

Grrantrantrant…

Obama & Denmark Vs Stupidity

I can't believe the whole nonsense about those Danish cartoons is still going on. It seems to me that a cartoon of someone, say a religious leader of some kind, depicted with a bomb in his beard/turban/fanny pack might be trying to point out that there are some nutters out there committing violent acts in the name of religion. If I were of that religion and I saw these pictures, I'd possibly think, 'You fucker — what do you know about me and my people?' and maybe write to the newspaper that published the picture saying, 'You've got the wrong end of the stick, mate, it's like this…'

If that had been the reaction, people the world over would have said, 'Gosh, those people aren't at all the way we imagined — I'm glad this provocative cartoon was able to begin the dialogue that is leading towards our mutual understanding and eventual enlightenment as a species.' The cartoonists might not be living in 'safe houses' for fear of their lives and we might all, as one, realise that we have more in common than not and… Sorry, just me getting silly again!

"Stephen, you're just going to cause trouble. You and your crazy belief that we should all just get along because there's no real reason why we shouldn't, you're going to piss people off!"

I know, I know…

Unfortunately, what actually happened was that people in the West watched people in the Middle East and Asia start burning shit and screaming for blood. Em… Not to be a dick here, but isn't that rather proving the point the cartoon was trying to make? You can't get offended if someone says, 'You are a violent nutter,' if your behaviour up to that point has involved burning shit and screaming for blood — both, I'm sorry to say, signs of violent nutterism.

The news that Osama, mythical King of the nutters (whose name is, interestingly enough, an anagram of Obama Sin Laden… Rush Limbaugh can have that one for free. Actually, it's already out there, so much for my witty wordplay, huh?), has released a new single in response to the, ahem, two-year-old cartoons comes as little surprise. I love this:

'[The message] showed a still image of bin Laden aiming with an assault rifle.

"The response will be what you see and not what you hear and let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God," said a voice believed to be bin Laden's, without specifying what action would be taken.'

Wow, this guy really makes sense, doncha think? Fucking hell…

Speaking of violent nutters, the U.S. election is still fascinating me. Obama, while I don't believe he's any less a corporate puppet than McCain or Clinton, is at least a corporate puppet willing to say things nobody else dares. His speech the other day, in which he addressed racism in America and the various reasons for it has gained him fans around the world, saying it's like a Kennedy or Lincoln speech. Eh, they're both famous examples of U.S. Presidents ASSASSINATED WHILE IN OFFICE! Jesus, Barack, my friend, you might want to reconsider this whole president thing.

I'm reminded of Dave Chappelle's bit on the first black president, and how nobody wants to be that guy. Second black pres, sure, but first? Let's not forget they shot the first Irish president, and he was white!

Anyway, Obama has made his point about racism in the U.S., that everyone just has to fucking get over it and, to semi-quote Bob Marley, until the colour of man's skin of of no more significance than the colour of his eyes, everywhere is this fucked up distrust of people with different skin tones. He also addresses the religious nutjob, sorry, Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. who has lately been saying wonderfully inflammatory things about how Americans are all shits. From the International Herald Tribune, "Wright has accused the U.S. government of being corrupt and racist and has said that the country might have deserved being attacked on Sept. 11, 2001."

Ouch!

So, the Senator from Illinois took on the elephant in the room, pointing out that it affects everybody and needs to stop so everybody can step back from each other's throats and get on with life. Most people lapped it up, praising its bravery and honesty as a speech (not something you get too often in a presidential campaign), but there were some who felt a little differently:

'[Some] commentators expressed a kind of disappointed sense that Obama, in delivering the address, had succumbed to the heightened racial tensions and not simply ignored them.'

Yeah, what a great idea — ignore the biggest issue facing American society! Let's pretend that the historical divide between whites and blacks doesn't exist, cos if we ignore it it'll go away and not fester until we have race riots in the streets. Carole McDonnell, the woman quoted in the piece (her full article is HERE) doesn't seem quite as against the speech as the IHT suggests. The amount of Christian nonsense in it and the following comments worries me… The fact is, you simply can't have a black president in a predominantly white country without addressing the issues surrounding why this is A Big Deal — even if it shouldn't be.

It is a big deal, no matter how much it shouldn't be, and I'm glad Obama has finally realised that, stopped hedging his racial bets and drawn attention to an issue that IS extremely divisive. Perhaps if the U.S. can get over this hump, the rest of the world can too…

Stop fucking those godamned PigDogs!

Jesus, you people are sick! Well, so the Dutch government now believes.

I'm not particularly concerned about the illegalisation of bestiality, although I'm surprised it was legal up to now. Oh, sorry, except in cases where the animals could be proven to have suffered. Eh, 'scuse me? Fucking a dog doesn't count as causing it suffering? You wouldn't do it to a child, why do it to a dog/pig/horse/newt?

Surely the same rule applies, that consensual sex is not possible with someone who doesn't understand what sex is, even if that 'someone' is Fido? It's rape whatever way you slice it. Look at the poor things, how sexual abuse affects every aspect of their lives, leaving them confused about everything, sexuality, species identity…



The worst thing about the new legislation is the purpose of it. Those fucking Christian bastards who've taken control of this country and the rest of the West and hijacked our common sense aren't concerned about the welfare of the animals, nope — they want this sort of behaviour banned because it's IMMORAL. You know what I think is immoral? Imposing your nonsense morals, based on a book which was created as a means of control in the first place, on the world at large.

These fuckers don't know when to stop!

These are the same people whose 'morals' don't stand in the way of their plans to deport Antilleans living in the Netherlands if they aren't pulling their weight. Now, the Dutch Antilles are the remaining shreds of the Dutch Empire. Territories plundered over centuries, population SOLD several times over during slavery — not generally a good deal for the islanders, historically. The head of state on these islands is Queen Beatrix, same as here, but they can't just move to Holland — the Mainland, as it were — unless they're prepared to work really hard.

Um...

I would think the Dutch owe these people a lot more than just a parking space — considering how wealthy the place has become off the back of the various unpleasantnesses committed in the colonies — but somehow the Christian morals (decency, charity, all that shit) don't apply here. Apparently charity doesn't stretch to helping those from whom you've taken everything in the first place. It doesn't apply if the misery, hardship and social retardation is actually YOUR fault. Only if someone else did it, when you can stand on your high hobby horse and say, "Oh, that is shameful, here let us help…"

Christian morals do, however, apply to recent government ponderings on the legality of the coffeeshops — an entirely irrelevant issue used regularly as a smokescreen for the real issues if ever there was one.

Isn't it wonderful that these people can be all fire and brimstone Godly when it comes to sticking their noses into people's private affairs, but they're pure capitalists when it comes to humanitarian issues?

"For years, the Netherlands has been at the very top of the rankings when it comes to the lowest number of drug-related deaths.

Experts say this is mainly due to the transparency of the Dutch system, the strict dividing line between hard drugs and soft drugs and the outstanding care for addicts. However, the current government is keen to jettison this liberal approach because of their own anti-drugs beliefs and because it is thought to contravene European regulations. Ironically, the proposed changes come at a time when an increasing number of governments are gradually coming round to the idea of following the Dutch example, precisely because it has been such a success."

Wow. While I knew that Christians wanted us all dragged back to Stone Age values and idol-worshipping fear, I hadn't realised just how close they were to actually doing it. But they're right, of course, let's jettison centuries of progress in favour of an outmoded and utterly ridiculous belief system that has no respect for the natural world, for people and the things they can do — Christian attitudes towards sexuality surely being the big fucking giveaway that they couldn't care less about us.

I don't think there can be any punishment too extreme for these people, as they are chipping away at our only recently gained, and still very fragile, enlightenment as a species. Leaving Christians in charge, we may as well cut off our thumbs, we won't need them where we're going.

We won't need one-legged leeches like Heather Mills either. This case makes me angry, much like everything else, really. So perhaps it's not that important.

Terrorists and the like

Ah… The scent of burning flesh in the air, could it be that I'm standing next to a recently exploded tank, filled to the brim with grunts, squaddies and such? No, tis the rashers in the pan.

So, out of that, into the fire!

Today I learned that the U.S. are adapting Cold War techniques in the War on Terror. Yeah, cos they worked so well during the Cold War, when two of the world's largest and most powerful countries — who really should have known better — spent the best part of five decades comparing the size of their dicks. Unfortunately for the Russians, they couldn't maintain their erection, and it all went gooey and flaccid. Possibly something to do with Nancy Reagan, hard to say.

Is Medvedev the new hard on Russia's been craving? Who cares? Enough of the phallic anallic.

Where was I? Oh, yes. So, the U.S. are adapting deterrent techniques, based on the average size of an Arabic penis. They've been spreading rumours that the American cock is waaay bigger than the Middle Eastern average, in the hopes that these, ahem, FUNDAMENTALIST, LED-BY-GOD, GUIDED-BY-FAITH NUTTERS might realise that there is, in fact, too much in the way of balls in America and the West.

I think it's the size of the collective Western cock that these people have a problem with, trying to undermine their metaphorical genitalia probably won't help.

It's unclear from the article exactly how the undermining is being implemented, but apparently it's working! (Now there's a shock!)

"They [The CIA and shit] did point to some older and now publicized examples that suggest that their efforts are moving in the right direction.

George Tenet, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote in his autobiography that the authorities were concerned that Qaeda operatives had made plans in 2003 to attack the New York City subway using cyanide devices.

Zawahiri reportedly called off the plot because he feared that it 'was not sufficiently inspiring to serve Al Qaeda's ambitions,' and would be viewed as a pale, even humiliating, follow-up to the 9/11 attacks."

OK, so how exactly did the CIA affect this decision of Zawahari's? Obviously the man is suffering from some kind of Difficult Second Album Syndrome andafter recording his sophomore effort decided to scrap the whole thing and go back into the studio. Or so it seems from this. No mention of CIA activity on this front, although maybe it appears in Tenet's book. (More interesting non-fiction? Well, probably more like a marginally realistic novel.) Not a great example to pick, however, and it's certainly neat the way the Admin is always able to pull up an example of how great they done two years ago when stuff almost happened but they was able to stop it cos them terrorists is stoopid and why did we never mention it at the time, well we din' want to worry you — Go back to bed, World! We are in Control! Yeeks!

I liked this: '"Many terrorists value the perception of popular or theological legitimacy for their actions," said Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser. "By encouraging debate about the moral legitimacy of using weapons of mass destruction, we can try to affect the strategic calculus of the terrorists.'"

Still banging on about WMDs? Has anyone ever seen a WMD, outside of a U.S. military installation or the wildest dreams of Donnie Bumsfeld? Would a small bomb strategically planted in a gas depot, or whatever they call those places where gas is pumped about the place, count as a WMD? Surely the Destruction would be fairly Mass.

Do planes count?

Does Chuck Norris?

A lovely quote: "During his visit, Chuck Norris decided not to rename Iraq "Chuckistan"...but if he wanted to?"

Time to pontificate.

Craicdown? Fucking hypocrites.

After years and years promoting St Patrick's Day as the time when all Oirish folk can, nay, MUST get blind drunk — to prove their patriotism and national character — the Oirish government asked people to, "Take it easy, now, lads." This would be easier to bear if it wasn't for the fact that the Oirish government is almost exclusively run by publicans. Let's call them drug dealers, for the sake of argument.

Huh?

They're not drug dealers, they're vintners, you say?

You say potato, I say grain shipped out of Cork Harbour.

So that was annoying to read. So too was the fact that the majority of the Oirish government is abroad today — their own country's national holiday — doing the leprechaun thing, promising pots of gold in return for foreign investment. "Sure would you not open yer factory in Tuam? The craic's ninety down there…"

My anti-Irish sentiment is increasing expontentially these days, but so is my anti-World sentiment. I think I look at Ireland as a microcosm of all that is shit on Planet Earth. The greed, stupidity, willful ignorance, bigotry and many, many more things add up to make it fairly representative of what irks me about modern 'civilisation'. Basically, right, I think it's all gone horribly wrong. Unfortunately, it looks like it's always been that way. Sigh.

Spurred on by the first part of David Icke's conversation with Credo Mutwa, in which they discuss a rather outlandish conspiracy theory regarding the true rulers of the world, I've been reading a little about Africa's history.

While Mutwa's story about abduction and the reptilian race that really runs shit is hard to swallow, it really doesn't seem any less plausible than, for example, Christianity. Perhaps even more so. At least there's no imaginary guilt built into his beliefs. But that's not what interested me most about the interview. I was fascinated by Mutwa's talk about how, as a youngster in the 1930s he discovered that many of the things he'd been taught as truths about his people and their history by Christian (European, white) missionaries were total bollox.

He was taught, as was I, that Africa had been a savage and primitive place before Europeans arrived. Having read a little about the spread of Christianity in Europe, and the cynical way in which various Christian festivals were placed to coincide with previously established Pagan celebrations — also declared savage and primitive — I don't find that too hard to believe. Even thinking about Africa's place in history for a moment should set the alarm bells ringing. It's pretty much accepted these days that all humanity originated in Africa, thanks to incredibly old fossils and other archaeology. So, if people have been there since the Dawn of Man, what the fuck were they at all that time? Hanging around, waiting to be civilised by white people?

Unlikely.

If you think about the fact that we've been on this planet for nearly 2 million years and our knowledge of human history only stretches back about 6000 years, you have to wonder what all those people were up to. Even thinking about the 2000ish years of the Christian era, if Europeans were achieving so much, why would you assume the Africans had been doing nothing?

But, in the absence of a written history, because Africans didn't bother with a written language, it's been easy to impose this image onto the continent. Also, the Europeans who shat on the place didn't have any respect for the cultures they were eradicating to the extent that they really didn't exist to their moustachioed pomposity. I'm not going to start ranting about the sort of humanity that thinks it's OK to stroll into a country and start killing all round them and taking over, that would take a long time and really, what's the point? If you can't see that sort of behaviour for what it is, counter-productive, retro-evolutionary and fucking evil, then I'm not going to get anywhere anyway. (Who are you talking to, Stephen? The voices, the voices…) As well as producing Magellen the Explorer, Portugal also spawned some real genocidal bastards.

When the Portuguese arrived in East Africa in the 15th century they encountered a sophisticated trading empire, which dealt with China, India and the rest quite happily. Within a short time the Europeans had done some totally unexpected hacking and slashing, which started the full-scale looting of Africa which continued for centuries and left behind the fucking mess that exists there today.

A mess which nobody is clearing up because there's still a total contempt for Africa in the white world. A contempt with no basis in anything whatsoever, but the bullshit 'truths' we've been handed down by colonialism. If history's been written by the winners, Africa really didn't get much of a say.

So, basically, my point is: What was going on in Africa all that time?

Lindsay Lohan in tits scandal!

Believe it or not, Lindsay posed in a studio for some booby pictures. As a result, we have clearer than usual sideboob, but given that our hints at the contents of Li-Lo's blouse are from a telephoto lens, that would not be difficult.



The funniest thing is that she's doing a Marilyn Monroe-style shoot. That's not really funny in itself, but it becomes so when you compare the two ladies in their sexy poses:



And:



No real contest, huh? One more, why not?



And now for something completely different, because I can.

I came across a really interesting International Herald Tribune article on Shariah law. It looks at Shariah law through history and addresses the Ardship of Cambury's recent ravings about having a separate legal system to deal with Muslim criminals (he included Orthodox Jewish law in his statement, but nobody seemed to care, apparently OJ laws are cool with everybody).

Basically, Noah Feldman tries to make the point that Shariah law is not all about cutting off hands and stoning people for thinking about cheeseburgers or sex (or both! Fucking cheeseburgers…). In fact, it's about as reasonable as British law in some cases. Let's not forget how the law in the West punishes people in a rather arbitrary way, with theft and drugs offenses often being punished more severely than rape in some cases. Let's also not forget that it wasn't until 1988 that the US decided executing anyone under the age of 16 wasn't right. Woo, let's hear it for 20 years of 'enlightenment'. Then there are the 39 or so people executed under US law since the 1970s, whose guilt was in question. People argue that their innocence wasn't proven, but isn't the basic, fundamental and most important part of Western law that people are "Innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.

Anyway, right, the point is that Shariah law isn't really as bonkers as the US/white Christian propaganda machine would have you believe. Much of its perceived evil springs, not from the actual laws, but from the corrupt bastards who enforce those laws. Much like in the West, the Muslim world has long been compromised by power-hungry individuals who have twisted, contorted and debased what had been a pretty reasonable system. At least, for its time.

Where it gets silly, of course, is when you get down to the whole God thing. According to Feldman, 'The word "Shariah" connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God's will.' Alarm bells should be ringing for anyone with a brain. That makes no more sense than putting Spider-Man in charge of policing the streets of New York would. Why not? Well, while I admit that Spidey would be a formidable force in the fight against organised crime, as we've seen from the comics, the fact remains that HE DOES NOT EXIST. And neither does this god chap.

You want proof? OK, well, not sure I can prove it entirely, but… The Prophet Muhammad used to be in charge of all things legal. He'd look at the problem and receive some vague and non-specific 'revelation' about what needed to be done and would have it done. whether it was chopping the hands off a thief or stoning a woman to death for having nipples. But, according to Feldman (again), "With the death of Muhammad, divine revelation to the Muslim community stopped." Funny that.

But, of course, the suggestion that the prophet might have been a, gasp, conman, milking his audience of enthralled and adoring followers, is blasphemy.

Lemme get this straight in my head: a man claims to be some sort of prophet, he has all kinds of revelations which he tells everyone about, but instead of saying "You're a nutter, mate," they're in desperate need for some sort of solace and/or direction and listen. This prophet spends years telling stories of his brushes with the Divine, and a legal system is built around his words. He dies, the God stuff stops coming, but nobody suspects he might have been making it all up?

I tells ya, there'd need to be some pretty overwhelming evidence these days for someone claiming to be a genuine, sent-by-god messenger of heaven to be listened to for more than five seconds without being strung up for blasphemous behaviour. In the 7th Century, however, people had less understanding of the world around them and were more likely to accept some superstitious nonsense as truth. Fair enough, but why ignore 1300 years of progress? Why accept some 7th Century opportunist whose claims could not, cannot and never will be proven over the evidence of our senses — in particular common sense?

Of course, I'm willing to accept that I'm entirely wrong on all fronts here, but it's up to someone to prove it to me.

Oh, one more nugget from that IHT article. something I hadn't realised before, which explains some of the crazy shit that goes on in the Middle East, "[Saudi Arabia] does not need to obtain tax revenues from its citizens to operate — and thus has little reason to keep their interests in mind." Wow, so there you have it… The government doesn't need your money, therefore Fuck Off.

I would like someone to tell me how an oil rich government with nothing but contempt for its citizens can possibly be considered A Good Thing.

From boobs to bollox, eh?

Am I wrong? Like, really wrong?

I've just found out that I'm wrong about almost all the things I was sure I wasn't wrong about. Well, I'm wrong about some things. Well, OK, I'm wrong about the fact that Bob Dylan at Budokan (his 1978 live album) is good.

At least, so it would seem.

I was always under the impression that the radical reworkings of Dylan's songbook were inspiring and added immeasurably to the original ditties. Like the Rolling Thunder Revue bootlegs showed, Dylan just sounds better with a big fucking band — especially if it's so big that few of the musicians can hear themselves, Bob, or anyone else on the stage. The mess, the confusion, the barely-held-togetherness of it all sort of captures the essence of rock'n'roll, in much the same way that a Velvet Underground feedback jam or a Ramones wall of noise does.

Perhaps the people who don't like it are the ones who still can't forgive Bob for going electric. Personally I don't think I'd ever have bothered to listen to Dylan had he not gone electric — it has to be the single greatest thing to happen to music since the invention of feedback. Maybe…

But, I'm obviously way off on this one, which is a blow.

The All Music Guide is pretty scathing, with this to say: "[Budokan is] interesting historically, perhaps, but only marginally." Ouch!

I'm not saying it's all brilliant, but it mostly is. There are at five tracks which get on my nerves, the last three on disc one (I Shall Be Released, Is your Love in Vain and Going, Going, Gone) and the last two on disc two (Forever Young and The Times They Are A-Changin'), but these are songs I never really liked in the first place, so I'm not sure they count. There's a lot of warbling in there…

But when you weigh those five songs against the majority of the album they pale into insignificance. I defy anyone to listen to that amazing, Fuck You version of It's Alright Ma and remain unmoved. Or the stripped down version of I Want You, which works so much better its jaunty and totally out of place counterpart on Blonde On Blonde. And what about It Ain't Me Babe? Or Maggie's Farm? Or Don't Think Twice…? All masterful reworkings of already incredible songs.

AMG lists the moods associated with Budokan as: Swaggering; Sardonic; Urgent; Snide; Intense; Autumnal; Cynical/Sarcastic; Bitter; Warm; Lively; Enigmatic; Yearning; Wistful; Intimate; Searching; Bittersweet; Poignant; Rousing; Energetic; Freewheeling; and Acerbic. If that list doesn't convince you that AMG is full of arse, nothing will. Would the word Freewheeling have appeared had Dylan's second album not held that title? And then all the other stuff. One word: Bum.

Of course, a lot of the Budokan stuff pales in comparison with the Rolling Thunder Revue bootleg stuff, but that was perhaps too good. How can the ponderous Desire rendition of Isis ever compare to its invective Rolling Thunder incarnation? ("She said, You been GONE/I said, That's only NATchurl/She said, You gonna STAY?/I said, If you want me to, YEAH!") And that's just one example, there are many more.

I'm not sure what it is that people don't like about Budokan, although AMG (again) says, "The dedicated aren't going to be dazzled by the slickness and the casual fans certainly aren't going to pay much attention to a live album from 1978." So, the casual fans aren't going to bother with something worth listening to? (Having perused the tracklist for the Bob Best Ofs I'm led to suspect this might be true, but only because a 'casual' Bob listener isn't really paying attention.) Die hards are a funny bunch anyway, unpredictable, fickle and unfailingly loyal-while-being-ruthlessly-critical. I'm not sure if I'm a die hard, but I suppose anyone who can listen to the 'lesser' Bobums (I include Planet Waves, Self Portrait, Infidels and everything else from the '80s here) and still find the genius and/or forgive him for the musical transgressions within probably counts. That includes me, then. I love damn thing!

After careful consideration, I believe I'm actually right and those who say otherwise are the ones with mistaken ideas. I'm happy to argue the point though. What could be more fun than a passionate argument about Dylan? Gawd, a Bobnerd am I.

Could be worse though. I could be a Paul Simonnerd or a Neil Youngnerd. Yick!

{EDIT} Ballad of a Thin Man, another outstanding rendition which proves me right. The Highway 61 version is a work of staggering genius, but this reinterpretation blows it out of the water. No more shall I rant…

An eye for an eye?

I'll maybe try not making so many angry, sweeping statements this fine day. After all, it is sunny, which is something we haven't seen much of so far this year (decade).

I came across a story which made me cringe today. It's THIS, about William Morva, a guy who's just been sentenced to death for killing a couple of people during an attempted jailbreak. The fact that he's my age, and looks so young under all that hair, is weird.

Not that I think his age excuses what he did, murdering two people is no laughing matter, but is having him put down really the answer?

The father of one of the victims came out with a real nugget: "Harold McFarland said after Thursday's verdict that he is not a vengeful person but that he thought the death penalty was appropriate in certain cases. 'Thisis one of them,' he said."

I have to say, it doesn't get much more vengeful than wanting someone dead.

It's a totally understandable point of view, the man's just lost his son under awful circumstances, but you do have to wonder. When will we, as a species, move on from the eye for an eye way of thinking?

It's interesting, too, to look at what he'd done to be in prison in the first place. He was there on attempted robbery charges, which is bad enough, but it's thought that prison fucked with his head so much that he reckoned death would be better. Wow.

So, is this a case of prisons being too shitty (although at the end of the day it's a fucking prison and not supposed to be fun, what with the whole punishment thing)? Or is it just that Morva was a pussy who couldn't take responsibility for his actions and swallow the consequences?

Whatever, it made me think…

I also found that this band, Gay For Johnny Depp, has one of the greatest names in the history of band names. The music's not really to my taste, that kind of screamie vocal, which sounds more like a teenager throwing a tantrum than anything else, really doesn't appeal to me. If you're going to distort your voice with shouting and cookie-monstering, get it right. Try not to sound like a pubescent delinquent whining about his pocket money.

Boi.

Wailing, gnashing, all that jazz.

Richard Dawkins is a very angry man, which I find reassuring because it means I'm not the only one.

Last night I watched his two-part documentary "The Root of All Evil?", which aside from having a pure channel 4 sensationalist title was very interesting — and not a little bit scary.

While I'm fully aware — and have been for years — that religion is the one thing that stands between humanity and civilisation, there are various dangerous aspects of belief and faith that I hadn't fully realised. For years I was angered by the constant signs of religious nonsense around me, particularly when in Ireland and surrounded by thousands of the least Christian Catholics you can imagine. (The hypocrisy of a group of people who can talk endlessly about God's charity and giving and loving and all that, but who will, at the same time, treat newcomers with something below contempt, to the extent of making up vicious rumours about them. Something my parents had to deal with among those slack-jawed fucks.)

The hypocrisy really bugged me, until I decided to ignore it and take solace in the knowledge that when these silly bastards, who've had one eye on the afterlife as their real life passed them by, actually do pop off they'll be confronted with the realisation that they were totally, entirely and utterly wrong. Yes, you could have just gone on and enjoyed life rather than spent all your time feeling guilty about sex/food/whatever and, worse, exhorting others to feel guilty about what they do because YOU don't approve on the basis of your warped morality.

But where it all falls down is in areas surrounding the Good Book. Now, the Old Testament is the basis for the world's three largest religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. But how can it be that religion, which is at the end of the day supposed to be a way to help people come to terms with the world around them and live in peace and love, is based on a series of extremely violent fables crammed with plainly immoral acts passed off as The Will of God. Give me a fucking break.

Here's a wonderful example of the kind of warped thinking I'm talking about, from Ye Olde Bibble (Judges, if you must know):

19:22 [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, [nay], I pray you, do not [so] wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

19:24 Behold, [here is] my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord [was], till it was light.

Yes, she's dead. Raped to death, as it were — but at least those men proved they weren't homos!

Er… What? Raping a woman to death is BETTER than having consensual sex with a member of the same gender? Since when? Whose fucked up moral compass decided that?

The really scary thing is when people say things about how you can't take all of the Bible seriously, but it has good lessons to teach. Right, OK, I'll buy that for now. I'll accept that Christians understand that parts of this book are totally bonkers and not to be read to children. I'll go along with the line that this book is a sort of How To guide to life. But, if you bought an appliance (call it a washing machine) and the instruction booklet contained a chapter on how much fun can be had stuffing kittens into the washer and watching them drown slowly as they're spun round and round and how doing so would make you a good an virtuous person — you might think, "Perhaps the rest of this manual is bollox." However, a lifestyle guidebook with chapters on how great rape, pillage, genocide, racism, small-mindedness and ignorance are is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

I wouldn't trust the Bible to accurately describe the symptoms of flu, never mind advise me how to live my life.

It gets more worrysome when you come across articles like THIS, which demonstrate that the world we live in is not only largely populated by fools, but it's ruled by them too. Quotes like "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to all humanity," should not be coming from the mouth of a man with his finger on the fucking nuclear button.

It would be unfair to have a go at Christians alone, especially since their ludicrous book is also the basis for Judaism and Islam. (Surely someone out there can see the joke here. No?)

The Belgian government recently announced it would be paying €110 million to Jewish people as 'restitution' for losses during World War II. Because a big wad of cash will make everything OK.

Apologies for atrocities committed over 60 years ago delivered by people who weren't even alive at the time are surely the most pointless imaginable. anyone can say, "Jeez, sorry for the shit that went down in your granny's youth, I won't do it again." It means nothing — you didn't do it in the first place. The Belgian PM, I can say with some certainty, did not stoke the fires at Belsen, nor did he cheer at Nuremburg, so why is he apologising for something he had nowt to do with? I could apologise for Bryan Adams' songbook, but since I had nothing to do with its creation… Why would I? Instead, I talk about how awful Bryan Adams is and try to steer people away from him.

What is telling is the way people talk about the Holocaust as if the tragedy of the past justifies atrocity in the present. I'd maybe have more time for this sort of thing if I felt that "Keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive" did anything other than make the Germans feel guilty for something they had nothing to do with. Yes, that's right — WW2 was NOT fought by millions and millions of Germans alive today. This doesn't stop them from having serious guilt issues as a race. I think we can safely say that the vast majority of Germans are well aware that such a thing should not happen again.

But what I really would like to see is some evidence that the lessons of history somehow made an impression on the Jewish people, and not just to make them the victims of the world. Surely a routing and attempted genocide perpetrated against your people by a plainly evil and psychopathic regime would make you think, "Hey, that was some bad shit — perhaps we'll be nice to folks and try make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again!"

Alas, no. One word: Israel.

"Hey, we've got all the Jews here who want their own country, where'll we put them?"

"Eh… well, there's a nice bit of land in Palestine."

"Don't the Palestinians live there?"

"Yeah, but the Jews have had a tough time. Shit rolls downhill. Fuck 'em."

How does the theft of land and the suppression of the people who used to be there and the occasional foray into mass murder add up to "Keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive"? Well, I suppose in a very real sense it is alive for anyone unfortunate enough to be on the business end of an Israeli missile, which whistled through the window during their maths class. Is that what the money's for? To help them buy bigger weapons with which to murder Arabs?

Islam boggles my mind a little more. I love the way Muslim clerics have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the essential goodness of their people — nor in their flock's ability to discern for themselves what is bollox and what is not. Well, that's how it seems to be from a Western perspective. I mean, Muslims are, apparently, so untrustworthy that women have to be covered entirely at all times in case someone can't resist the urge to rape them. ("O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not harassed." [33:59]) Er… Surely rape is one of the things we can all agree is wrong and, as such, we can continue to not do it to one another? I have a hard time believing this is not also true of Muslims.

But it's that damned Old Testament shit again…

One of my favourite recent examples of this total lack of faith was when Pakistan's government barred access to YouTube on the grounds that there was a clip from Geert Wilders' film about Islam posted there. The film, Fitna, is 15 minutes of Wilders tearing apart the Koran on the grounds that it's a violent, nasty book. OK, if you're a Muslim I can see how this would really fuck you off. However, I do not think being fucked off at a racist little wanker from the Tweede Kamer is good grounds to start banning websites, burning embassies or threatening people's lives.

I mean, seriously, if your faith is that strong in the first place rise above it. Make your own film entitled "Geert Wilders is a Wanker" and post it on YouTube.

On the other hand, you could respond to accusations that your faith is barbarous and violent by burning shit and blowing stuff up.

But doesn't that play right into the hands of the people who are making these accusations?

If someone says to you, "You're a fucking nutter and your imaginary friend isn't as good as mine!" And you respond by saying something like, "My imaginary friend and I are going to tear out your tongue and fly a plane into your house!" You might be proving that you are, in fact, a nutter.

Basically, right, religions are ALL bad for our development, both as a species and individually.

"Respecting" the rights of people to worship in their own way is one thing, but when these private beliefs suddenly become the justification for the launching of bombs, the firing of guns and the general kind of rape and pillage that goes on — that's when the problems start and when we have to draw a line under the nonsense we've been filling our heads with since man first decided that the world was created by a bloke in the sky.

It wasn't.

Of course, this is all personal observation and totally subjective, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. If you disagree, feel free to ostracise me from society and perhaps stone me to death, but I think a chat would suffice.