The science of the Koran

Science-in-hindsight, is what the Koran should be called. Very vague ‘science’ at that. It is a book that you can find obscure verses and claim scientific understanding….. after the science has already discovered something. Like when people suggested Nostradamus predicted 9/11…. but were only able to make the connection after 9/11. The Koran is similar… wait until something is known, and then claim Islam knew it all along. This isn’t science, this is absurd opportunism.

I was first introduced to Islam’s claims on scientific advancement, and forethought, when listening to the Muslim speaker, Hamza Tzortzis try to point to the Koran’s description of mountains as proof that the Holy book is divine. He claimed that there is no way Mohammad could have known that mountains act as ‘pegs’ – as claimed in the Koran – at that time. This refers to the fact that mountains extend downwards into the upper mantle of the Earth. The moment he said it, the Muslim observers in the room were taken in, as if he’d just proven the existence of God. They were awed by his vision. Sadly, they were also woefully misinformed and manipulated (which is of course, the job of the religious preacher). The Koran in this instance, states:

“Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?”

- Typically vague, but also wrong. Clearly Allah is asking a rhetorical question. If an answer were permitted, it would be an unequivocal ‘no’. Though Islam Guide.com thinks the answer is a definitive yes backed by modern science.

Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

- All of the above, simply isn’t true. A mountain is not stabilising anything, it holds nothing together. It is like a human in water, part is above the surface, part is below, but you wouldn’t refer to the part of the body below the surface as a peg. It simply floats. Likewise, a mountain simply floats on the mantle.
Islam-guide.com continues its plague of ignorance, with the conclusion:

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth.

I recall my science lessons at school, my geography lessons of which I retained information from, to the abandonment of all mathematical teaching, which I quickly learned to discard through pure hatred of the subject. I recall that Volcanoes do not extend as ‘pegs’. Contractional tectonics also form mountains – the Appalachians for example, are definitely not ‘pegs’. The Sierra Navada mountain range has mountains created by what is known as fault block mountains, which are formed when rocks slide through the slopes of the Earth’s crusts. None of which act at all as stabilizers. To claim so, would get a huge roar of laughter from the scientific community.

The reason that the Koran refers to mountains as “pegs” is for it’s next claim:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you… (Quran, 16:15)

Now, islam-guide.com again tries to, rather embarrassingly, explain this quote, and link it to modern science:

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth.

- Firstly, they don’t hinder the shaking of the Earth. In fact, mountains are formed by the shaking of the Earth. Secondly, that isn’t what the Koran says. It states quite unequivocally that mountains will ensure the World that the Earth will NOT shake with you, in any way. Well, tell that to the people of Japan. An Earthquake so strong, the island of Honshu was moved eight feet eastward. If Allah had intended for mountains to prevent the Earth from shaking, he failed, miserably.

Often, I have been told by the religious faithful that their Holy Book contains advance science that humanity, at the time of writing the Holy Book, could not possibly have known.

Followers of Islam, more so than Christianity or Judaism in this instance, claim their book is filled with advanced scientific knowledge. To the believer, it’s somewhat of an assurance that their scripture is anything but a book of delusions and vicious hatreds. To the unbeliever, its poor attempt to break the increasing truths offered by science.

Every claim of scientific advancement in the Koran, is either too ambiguous to take seriously, already knowledge widely accepted at the time, or just plain wrong. It is extraordinary for Islamic scholars to claim that their Holy Book holds any sort of scientific truth. A very quick critical analysis of the Koran, and of scientific knowledge already known, long before Mohammad’s time, proves that the Koran offers nothing new. It is beyond irrational to claim it does.

For example:

“Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [31:29]

- This, according to Way to Allah.com is, quite bizarrely, proof that the Koran held the knowledge of the Earth’s spherical shape:

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.

- Well, why didn’t the Koran say that the Earth is spherical, if that’s what it meant? As opposed to a deeply ambiguous suggestion? Not only that, but it is wrong. The Earth spinning on its axis is what creates the illusion of day and night, not “Allah”. I cannot imagine a reputable astronomer or physicist would phrase the day turning into night, as a God merging the two together.
If we are going to take deeply ambiguous statements and claim they are proof of scientific advancement, with respect to the Earth’s shape, then we must be consistent:

[15:19] And the earth We have spread out like a carpet; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.

- This seems to suggest that the Earth is flat, like a carpet, and that Mountains cannot in any way move.
Not only is the idea of a flat Earth scientifically wrong, it was even known to be wrong by the time the Koran was written. It offers no new insight, it simply offers an idea that was defunct around the 3rd Century BC. About 800 years before the Koran. Aristarchus of Samos suggested the Sun was the centre of the Universe, in the 3rd Century BC; this piece of wisdom was truly way ahead of its time. Aristarchus offers us a glimpse into scientific reality on a scale that, 800 years later, the Koran hadn’t even came close to, and Aristarchus certainly didn’t claim divine revelation for his predictions. Unsurprisingly, flat Earth predictions were borne out of Ancient Mesopotamia, and so it would seem that cosmological claims in the Koran can be viewed as earlier traditions coming out of Mesopotamia thousands of years prior to the Koran. Heavens, Firmament, great deep, pillars, the concept of the Earth being flat like a carpet, all this nonsense can also found in the Bible. Educated people knew the Earth was round, as envisaged by Ptolemy and before him, Aristotle, long before the Koran; which still seems to suggest that Earth is flat.

I’m not the only one who suggests that the Koran says the Earth is flat. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a prominent exegeses of the Koran that still holds much importance, 600 years after it was written, states quite openly:

” … and his saying sutihat makes it obvious that the earth is flat, and this is certified by Ulama’ ash-shar’a (the shari’a theologians), not a globe as it is said by ahlul-hay’a (the laymen).”

Let’s for one second accept that the Koran states that the Earth is egg shaped (this translation, is rather new), is this new to the Koran? Well, no. Let’s note that before becoming a Prophet, Muhammad was a merchant. A trader. He had contact with different cultures, and would most definitely have come into contact with ideas especially those coming out of Greece. The Greeks knew the Earth was round in the 6th Century BC. Plato taught students that the Earth was a sphere. Aristotle’s incredible evidence based in astronomy was way ahead of its time, predating Islam by a millennium. Aristotle noted that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, is round. Eratosthenes even attempted to work out the Earth’s circumference, 700 years before Muhammad’s time. These great Greek scientific leaders, have seemingly had their brilliance hijacked by Islam, which claims their achievements as their own.

A simple observation of Greek history, finds that by the time that the Koran sprung up, Greek cosmology and culture had spread as far as Afghanistan and even India, having penetrated Arabia centuries previous.

Much like the Nostradamus obsessives, believers in the Koran cannot predict a new scientific discovery, until after the discovery is made. They then re-translate their Holy Book, and surprise! “We were right all along!” Fans of Nostradamus will only assign a prediction of his, after an event has taken place. It is weak reasoning, and it certainly proves absolutely nothing. If the Angel Gabriel genuinely did present Mohammad with scientific knowledge written in the Koran, then the Angel Gabriel was less knowledgable in the 7th Century, than Aristotle was, 1000 years earlier. I’m not sure that’s too good an advert for Heaven.

On the subject of taking the translation too far, and just inventing their own translation from the original, to suit objections, there is one doing the rounds that amuses me greatly. The claim is that the Koran actually accurately describes the Big Bang, here:

It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

- The problem here is, the experts claim that this isn’t actually what the original translation says. The translation, according to the the Centre for Muslim-Jewish engagement at the University of California, the verse actually reads:

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.
Pickthal: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

- This is clearly vastly different from the more modern translation. The constant use of the phrases “heavens and Earth” echoes the same offering from the Bible and other ancient sources, which considered the universe to consist pretty much entirely of the Earth and heaven, so it is unsurprising that the Koran mentions them together, all the time. The Koran, again, proves to be a product of its time. If it is divine, it is horribly lazy of its creator. The Koran is pretty conclusive with its cosmology; the Earth is flat, there are seven heavens, and it is geocentric.

Another favourite of the Muslim community, is to quote the Koran’s claims on embryology:

And indeed We created man out of an extract of clay. (12) Thereafter We made him as a Nutfah in a safe lodging. (13) Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So Blessed is Allâh, the Best of creators.[] (14)

- This is one of those instances where the Koran is not vague. It claims that man is made from a clot of congealed blood. Whilst being entirely wrong, the moulding together of a drop of blood, with embryology already existed, is not new to the Koran, and was quite obviously stolen by Muhammad, from the Babylonian Enuma Elish tablet. When you copy something from another source, and the other source is entirely wrong, thus making your claim entirely wrong, then it is clear your book is not divine.

The quote from the Koran also claims that the bones come first. Nutfah by the way, means sperm, in the best possible translation into English. To be precise, nutfatun amshaajin means a mixed drop of sperm. It doesn’t refer to the female ovum, in any such translation (and believe me, those who believe that the Koran contains scientific truth, like to say, when questioned about the vague, ambiguous, and wrong statements in the Koran, that it can be translated differently; they only tend to play this card when their first translation is quite obviously wrong).
The word used for blood clot, is alaqa. This word has been translated into ‘blood clot’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali, in 1951, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan in 1971, the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon in 1980, Hamidullah in 1981, and Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs in 1984. It’s pretty obvious that Alaqa is best translated to mean blood clot. The problem with this is, there is no stage in human development where the fetus is a clot of blood. It is just false science.

When it comes to the joining together of male sperm, and the female egg. Perhaps the Koran is unique and shows great forethought and revelation? Well, no. The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim, in his book Kitab al-tibyan fi aqsam al-qur’an, gives us a statement from the lips of Mohammad himself:

He is created of both, the semen of the man and the semen of the woman. The man’s semen is thick and forms the bones and the tendons. The woman’s semen is fine and forms the flesh and blood.

- Quite obviously, this is wrong. The “great” Prophet, is entirely wrong.

Dr Basim Musallam Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge says:

“Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen were as much a part of Middle Eastern Arabic culture as anything else in it…… “The stages of development which the Qur’an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s scientific account….There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur’an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur’anic terms to describe the Galenic stages”

- Turns out, the Koran merely states something that was known centuries earlier, alongside completely wrong ‘science’. All the Koran does here, is spend a long time catching up to scientific thought at the time.

Does the reference to sperm mean that the Koran has stumbled upon a great revelation; that sperm is partly responsible for life? Well, again……. no. Not even slightly. Aristotle had pointed to Anaxagorus, a Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, around 450bc, who stated that sperm came only from the male, and that the female simply provided a place of nurture. So, the “safe lodging” which Muslims say refers to the womb, was known as that, 1000 years before the Koran.

Secondly, it is important to note that bones are not created first, and slowly fleshed out. Bones and muscle tissue are created simultaneously. For a far more eloquent explanation, whilst at the same time dismissing the Islamic claim on embryology of Hamza Tzortzis, I would strongly advise watching this video, as Hamza attempts to explain embryology and the Koran’s claims on embryological truth, to……. a leading embryologist. The result is predictable; Tortzis and whomever he is with are proven wrong, and so they resort to changing the interpretation of the text, to suit the objection. Weak, weak, weak.
Needless to say, the Koran is wrong. There is never a stage in the development of a fetus, in which bones exist alone, much like there being no stage in fetus development when the fetus is a clot of blood. It would appear that we can find more information from Wikipedia on the development of a fetus, than we can from the all knowing master of the Universe. Wikipedia > Allah?

And do we really believe that we needed a 7th century divine commentary to tell humanity that sperm creates human life? The Koran, simply stole this idea from the ancient Greeks, without giving them any credit for it.
J. Needham, an author who specialised in Embryology, in his book “A History of Embryology” states the importance of Ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian Embryology, says that the Koran’s Embryological claims were simply:

“a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda”

- It appears more and more so, that the Koran is simply a collection of religious dogma attempting to claim the forethought of secular science as espoused by great minds like Aristotle, as its own. It is similar to when a girl in my Politics seminar tried to claim that Christianity invented Democracy. Religion trying to latch onto human advancement, and claim it as its own, should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

To summerise, the Earth is not flat, mountains do not hold the Earth down preventing it from shaking, and humans do not start out as bone, slowly fleshed out over time. A God who presents so many vague statements is bad enough, but an omniscient being presenting his creation with what seems to be drunkenly erratic commentaries on certain aspects of the World and humanity which turn out to be entirely false on the most basic of examination, is a God that not only should not be taken seriously, but should never have any sort of political power over the workings of society, and should be challenged by every free thinking human being, at every possible opportunity. That is how humanity advances beyond primitive dogma.

There is absolutely no scientific credibility laying in the pages of the Koran.

The wisdom of Philip Davies, MP

A couple of nights ago, Twitter was alive with the news that Tory MP for Shipley, Philip Davies had stood up in the House of Commons and said this:

“If an employer is looking at two candidates, one who has got disabilities and one who hasn’t, and they have got to pay them both the same rate, I invite you to guess which one the employer is more likely to take on.

“Given that some of those people with a learning disability clearly, by definition, cannot be as productive in their work as somebody who has not got a disability of that nature, then it was inevitable that, given the employer was going to have to pay them both the same, they were going to take on the person who was going to be more productive, less of a risk.

“My view is that for some people the national minimum wage may be more of a hindrance than a help.

“If those people who consider it is being a hindrance to them, and in my view that’s some of the most vulnerable people in society, if they feel that for a short period of time, taking a lower rate of pay to help them get on their first rung of the jobs ladder, if they judge that that is a good thing, I don’t see why we should be standing in their way.”

Philip Davies ideal England is one in which sweatshops, full of people with disabilities create cheap goods for the overly privileged Tory benches to feed from, whilst the sweatshop bosses drive up to the gates of Downing Street in their brand new Mercs, accompanied by a lovely big donation for the Tory Party.

Perhaps we could use the £161,300 in expenses he claimed rather dubiously in 2009, on top of his £65,000 a year salary, to pay people a better salary? On the subject of his expense claims, he claimed the most of all Bradford MPs, and claimed £10,000 more on his second home allowance than Bradford North MP Terry Rooney. I am not entirely sure how that’s warranted, or helps him does his job to a greater degree. Incidentally, claimed for more in second home allowances than my dad makes in a year. Unsurprisingly, he clings onto this gravy train by opposing much needed Parliamentary reform. The lobby for Parliamentary reform, Power 10 label Philip Davies as one of the six MPs who will happily block reform of Parliament. This isn’t surprising, given just how much he has financially benefited from the current corrupt nature of Parliament.

Nevertheless, there is an unnerving essence to a member of our national legislature, insinuating that a person’s worth should be based solely on their physical or mental capability, and then using defensive rhetoric, heartfelt sentiment, to sound as if he only wishes to help disabled people, rather than line the pockets of his Party’s donors, and make it easy for employers to exploit without worry. It is equally as unnerving for a politician to tacitly suggest that wage discrimination is not only acceptable, but entirely the fault of those who are being discriminated against. His words sound as if he is suggesting being disabled is a lifestyle choice, that requires a bit of a punishment. That punishment should apparently be an agreement to work for less money that one needs in order to live, along with the added expense that comes with certain disabilities.

It would be right to point out that those with disabilities, who Davies wants to be paid less, did not cause the financial problems we’re now in. Ironically, for Davies, it was the private sector’s excessive greed (of which he clearly has no problem in promoting) that caused the mess, through unproductive excess profit being used – not to pay people better even when it had accumulated enough to easily manage paying more – but on dodgy asset deals. The problem in 2007 wasn’t that there appeared to be a lack of capital caused by the need to pay disabled people, or anybody a national minimum wage, but by the fact that there was an abundance of concentrated excess capital that wasn’t being put to good and productive use. Wages were stagnating for the majority of people, whilst wages at the very top climbed higher and higher. That, is entirely the fault of the private sector. Is Davies saying that if we dropped the minimum wage, wages would flourish, failed Tory economics would be proven right, and disabled people would be working shorter hours, for a loyal boss, who paid wonderfully? Because I foresee a bunch of employers driving even bigger Porsche’s whilst their £2 an hour disabled employees can no longer afford adequate care. Davies certainly didn’t offer any added benefits that some disabled people may require due to being paid below minimum wage. Grants for specialised equipment? Incomes and the ability to pay for necessary care and equipment cannot always be planned for even on a week to week basis, for those suffering certain disabilities. To promote the idea of wage discrimination against those with disabilities, at the same time as cuts to Disability Living Allowance take hold

It is a minimum wage for a reason. Do we really believe employers wouldn’t use an “opt-out” for their own advantage? Wages at the top are already obscenely high in the private sector. In 2009, for example, the chief executive of the Anchor Trust, which provides home for the elderly, took home £391,000. Anchor Trust is a charity! Whilst donations are down and employees are facing redundancy it is ludicrous for a CEO of an organisation that so many people rely on, to take home almost £400,000 a year.

I continue to be of the opinion that if an employer cannot afford to pay somebody a decent enough wage to live on, he/she shouldn’t be running a business. They are a danger to the public. £5.89 is not a lot of money, and to suggest that the rest of us are entitled to at least that, whilst a disabled person is entitled to less, purely because of a natural affliction is sensationally regressive.

The far right narrative is the problem, not minimum wage legislation. Philip Davis is attempting to remove responsibility for fair pay away from the employer, and onto the employee. Citizens UK found that of the companies in London willing to sign up to paying their lowest paid members of staff a “National living wage” rather than a “National minimum wage”, of £8.30 an hour, they managed to lift 3500 families out of poverty in 2009. It didn’t have an adverse affect on prices, in the same way as the minimum wage introduction in the late 1990s didn’t have an adverse affect as many Tories claimed it would. Campaigners for a National Living Wage are screaming out at Tesco, who have failed to ensure their cleaning staff are paid a fair living wage, despite the company making £3.8bn profit last year. Employers do not, ever, take paying their staff a respectable wage seriously. Ever. Surely if they were made to pay more, of which they can definitely afford, the money would be divided among a workforce who would pay more tax, and use the added disposable income on goods and services from businesses across the Country, rather than wasting it on the very very small band of wealthy elites?

A study in America called “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” , found that job applicants with a white sounding name are 50% more likely to be asked back than an applicant with a white sounding name. The researches sent out 5000 applications in sales, marketing, clerical and customer service positions. The names they used were a mix of white sounding names, and black sounding names. The report showed that white applicants with stronger resumes than other white applicants received 30% more callbacks, whereas black applicants with stronger resumes than other black applicants received just 9% more callbacks. It proved that regardless of credentials, black applicants were 50% less likely to get a callback than a white applicant. I wonder if Philip Davis thinks black Americans should agree to work for less money than their white counterparts, purely because they are black? What about a black person with a disability? Back to slavery?

We should though, not be surprised by the ignorance that Philip Davis displayed. Here is an MP who voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which state that it is unlawful to discriminate when selling goods or services, education or facilities based on sexuality. Davies therefore thinks it is acceptable for a school to expel a gay student. Or for a shop to ban a lesbian lady purely for her sexuality. He also voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. So, he wants more freedom for shop owners to ban people based on sexual orientation (individualism and all that Libertarian bollocks) yet that same individualism, he doesn’t extend to the most privileged of people passing that privilege onto their children, who may or may not have worked or produced anything worthwhile in their entire lives? Oh the hypocrisy.

In 2011 he even invented his own logic based on a lie, when it comes to making cigarette packaging plain:

“I believe that the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes is gesture politics of the worst kind. It would not have any basis in evidence and it would simply be a triumph for the nanny state and an absurd one at that.”

- The objection I have with the line “it would not have any basis in evidence” is that it does have basis in evidence. Cigarette companies spend millions on their packaging, and over the last couple of decades, they have used the idea of “light” packaging to sell products to people who believe smoking “light” fags, means less danger. A 2004 British Medical Journal research article found that:

The increase in lung cancer risk is similar in people who smoke medium tar cigarettes (15-21 mg), low tar cigarettes (8-14 mg), or very low tar cigarettes (≤ 7 mg)

- So smoking a cigarette from a package that claims to be “ultra light” means nothing. But do people really believe “ultra light” means they are at less of a risk of developing lung cancer? Does the advertisement on the packaging work? If it does, then Davis is either a liar, or a massive idiot. Well, surprisingly……. he’s a liar or a massive idiot. A University of Toronto research paper, titled “‘Light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes: who smokes them? Are they being misled?” published in 2002 found that:

In 1996 and 2000, respectively, 44% and 27% smoked L/M (light and mild cigarettes) to reduce health risks, 41% and 40% smoked them as a step toward quitting, and 41% in both years said they would be more likely to quit if they learned L/M could provide the same tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes. These data provide empirical support for banning ‘light’ and ‘mild’ on cigarette packaging.

- The policy of plain packaging is absolutely based on evidence. It is time we started to ignore the “nanny state” hysterical screams from manic, misinformed, ignorant right wingers.

Not only that, but in 2006, after an act of vandalism was initially blamed on a group of Muslim men, Davies said:

“if there’s anybody who should fuck off it’s the Muslims who do this sort of thing.”

- It later turned out that the act of vandalism was caused by white men. Davies did not apologise, nor did he take the same tough far-right, BNP-esque line with the white vandals as he had done when he imagined the vandals were all muslim.

You might think the incessant stupidity stops there. You’d be wrong. In 2009 Davies asked:

“Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person? Why it is so offensive to black up your face, as I have never understood this?

Maybe he would be happy for black people to take a pay cut after all.

The grand of Duke of… underage sex brothels.

I don’t like dentists.
They exist only to hurt my face. I went to the dentist yesterday for two fillings. Today, my face feels eerily reminiscent of when I used to go to boxing and was furiously punched in the face by the kid with the hardest punch.

Instead of saying “Just two simple fillings today then”, in purposely misleading language to disguise the hell you’re about to face, like a cannibal saying “I’m having a man over for dinner”, he should have just said “Okay Jamie, I’m seriously about to make it feel like i’ve just raped your face. Then I might stamp on it. Just for fun. Oh and I have a fit assistant stood next to me, so you wont say no, because it’ll make you look like a wimp if you do. Is that okay? Good!”

He then makes me wear the most ridiculous looking shades in the World and puts a baby-like napkin around my neck. He then sticks a suction machine in my mouth. Any shred of dignity I had left is slowly wished away when he suddenly invites three female students to come and watch. He then decides that with me looking cool in my shades, a napkin to stop any drool, and a suction thing in my face, that now’s the time for small talk. So I have a numb face, a suction thing, the threat of dribbling everywhere, and three female students staring into my face. The only possible way it could have been less dignified, is if I shat myself at that moment.

Despite the horror at losing all dignity, I comforted myself by insisting that even if I were to shit myself, whilst being watched by students, and having my face raped by a crazy man in a white uniform, I would still be far more dignified than Prince Andrew. And that comforted me.

It emerged last week, that our marvelous Prince is good friends with a convicted Paedophile – Jeffrey Epstein, and has spent many fun filled weekends at Epstein’s mansion over in the U.S. A lady who used to help run Epstein’s mansion, admitted that lots of underage girls were seen topless and sometimes naked, in Epstein’s company, but insisted:

‘He was a very kind man and, while I don’t approve of things he’s been accused of, I liked him very much,’

One of those friendly paedophiles. I wouldn’t be happy if the Duke of Golf was making friends with the nasty type of paedophile. Anyway, Epstein was accused by over 40 girls between 13 and 17, of sexually abusing them, after they were recruited by other young girls to massage him. He served just 13 months in jail. He struck a plea bargain deal with US prosecutors, meaning he admitted minor charges, and so was unable to be tried for the more serious of crimes.

FBI agents found a list of names on his computer, and when asked if these men had also abused young girls, he pleaded the fifth amendment, suggesting that if he told the truth, it would be incriminating. The list includes famous people, and politicians.

One girl who was willing to testify against Epstein, named Jane Doe 102, now revealed as Virginia Roberts, now married and living in Australia, noted that she was just 15 years old when she had been:

sexually exploited by Epstein’s adult male peers including royalty

Roberts says that Epstein flew her to meet the Prince in 2001, and Andrew asked how old she was. She said she was 17, and Epstein’s girlfriend (Ghislaine Maxwell – daughter of late media owner Robert Maxwell) said:

“He’ll soon have to trade her in”

They all laughed, including the Prince.
Here is the Prince with Virginia Roberts, when she was 17 years old.

The FBI contacted Roberts years later to say that they found evidence that Epstein had been secretly filming her when she was in the bathroom, on the toilet.
This man is good friends with our Prince! Doesn’t it make you proud?

This comes almost a year after Wikileaks published files from a US Diplomatic cable showing that the US Ambassador was shocked at how rude and arrogant the Duke was. Referring to anti-corruption investigations, the Duke said:

“those fucking journalists … who poke their noses everywhere”

It seems he is unhappy that as a man who was born into privilege and given the job as UK trade envoy, simply to give him something productive to do, he should be above the law when it comes to corruption when involved in a massive Al-Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. He is also close friends with Gaddafi’s son – Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and it is suggested the Duke may have played a part in the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. Clearly he believes he should be allowed to partake in corrupt practices, and then relax at an underage sex brothel. We should leave him alone! The poor hereditary millionaire.

But it’s okay! Because his ex-wife must be able to provide some level of dignity back into a family of undignified over-privileged massive twats, right?
Wrong.
In 2009, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, was caught offering access to her husband, Prince Andrew, by Mazher Mahmood of the News of the World posing as an Indian businessman, for £50,000. She is now a bankrupt alcoholic and her husband is friends with a paedophile.

My undignified experience at the dentist, is nothing compared to Prince Andrews escapades.

Prince Andrew, like Charlie Sheen, is currently winning.

The Pig Society Part II

The Big Society grows ever stronger, and support grows ever wider, charity bosses and workers applaud it and sing its praises, because it is a wonderful plan that is definitely not a cover for a mass of Corporate tax cuts.

That is what delusional Conservatives believe.
Except, it’s bullshit.
The voluntary sector is being absolutely gutted of funding.
As the previous post pointed out. But to make it clear, the Guardian today featured a story of a lady named Denise Marshall. She is Director of Eaves and also the Poppy Project. These charities work with victims of domestic abuse and sex trafficking. She has dedicated her life to this cause. She has fought some pretty high powered members of the criminal underworld across Europe. Eaves provides housing and counselling for victims of abuse. They offer up to 35% savings on gas and electricity and other necessities for vulnerable women. In short, Denise Marshall is a heroine. She was recognised for this in 2008 by being given an OBE. She is one of the very few who actually deserve the honour.

Denise is now handing back the OBE, to David Cameron personally, because she has said that the extreme and needless cuts to funding for charities and organisations like Eaves, means she will no longer be able to support and fight criminal gangs who traffic women for the sex trade. She feels that she would be hypocritical and unworthy of an OBE when she can no longer protect the women she has the award for protecting.

Marshall said:

“I received the OBE in 2007 specifically for providing services to disadvantaged women. It was great to get it; it felt like recognition for the work the organisation has done.

But recently it has been keeping me awake at night. I feel like it would be dishonourable and wrong to keep it. I’m facing a future where I can’t give women who come to my organisation the services they deserve – I won’t be able to provide the services for which I got the OBE.”

“If you run a refuge where you don’t have the support staff it just becomes a production line, where you move people on as quickly as possible to meet the targets. You’re not helping women to escape the broader problems they face. They may get a bed, but no help with changing their lives and moving out of situations of danger.”

“I’ve worked in this sector for almost 30 years. I don’t want to sound melodramatic but I don’t think I have ever felt as depressed and desperate as I do now,”

How then, do the Big Society advocates justify the fact that on the same day as a true heroine feels she can no longer protect very very vulnerable women in her care, the Tories are trying to stop an EU law on the banning of naked short selling (which I shall try to explain as much as possible shortly)? The EU law, if the Tories get their way, will not affect the UK on naked short selling. Germany have banned it, the U.S have banned it, Australia have banned it, Hong Kong have banned it, Japan have banned it. We have kept it. It makes a very small elite group of speculators very rich, whilst risking money that is not theirs. How are these people protected, yet the vulnerable women like those that Denise Marshall represents have their funds slashed. The Government and its banking friends and business associates are sitting sipping champagne, whilst Rome burns. Nero would be in awe.

Short Selling (not naked short selling) is a little confusing, and utterly absurd. It has no social use. It is not to the benefit of any of us. It is dangerous and it should be banned. When you buy shares, you buy them in the hope that the price will rise and you can sell them some time in the future, to make a nice bit of money. It is all to do with how you obtain shares. You and I would buy shares. Naked short sellers borrow shares in the hope that the price will fall. So, if for instance I was to borrow 5000 shares from Broker A. I will then sell them at £1 a share, so £5000, hoping the price falls. Say the price falls by half. I now buy back all the shares, at £2500. I have netted myself a nice little £2500 and I give the 5000 shares back to the Broker A.

Naked Short Selling is different, because you don’t even borrow the shares you’re selling. You don’t have them. You’re selling a promise that you will obtain the shares that you’ve just sold, at some point in the future. You may as well walk into a bank, take all of their money, and promise to give it back at some point in the future. There is then an incentive for short sellers to wreck companies, because the share price has to fall for them to meet their promise. On a grand scale, this can lead to massive crashes.

This little practice lead necessarily to the 1997 Asian Financial Crises, that left millions in poverty. This wasn’t the fault of too much Government interference in people’s lives, or too many people on the dole. It was a direct result of unproductive short sellers and a massively deregulated financial sector.

The law looks to ban naked short selling in the EU. The UK will be trying to exempt itself from that banning.

This of course comes days after the announcement that there would be vast changes to the offshore tax laws, which mean that large and medium sized businesses who offshore their profits and then move them back to the UK, no longer have to pay the difference between the tax they paid in their tax haven and the tax they pay in the UK. They no longer have to pay any tax on profits that are made outside the country and brought back to the UK. Not only that, but they can claim expenses against tax they pay in the UK, to fund their overseas departments. That represents one of the biggest changes to Corporate tax law, and a massive shift of wealth from the poorest due to cuts, to the very wealthiest on a level far beyond anything Margaret Thatcher could have dreamed of. Suddenly the veil of an omni-benevolent Tory government is falling off, to be replaced by a face stamped with the logos of Diageo and Barclays.

On the 9th February, George Osborne told the House of Commons:

Those entrusted by us to regulate those bankers and run our economy washed their hands.
Meanwhile the rest of the country is left paying every day for their failures.
The government has to pick up the pieces.

It would seem that what Osborne believes is “picking up the pieces” entails giving away massive tax cuts, destroying the voluntary sector, and inviting the World’s naked short sellers to come and set up home in Britain.

Welcome to the Pig Society.

Why the Big Society is a load of bollocks

I have taken it upon myself to write a bullet point list of why the Big Society is a load of bollocks.

It’s a Tory plan.

In principle, is sounds lovely, and cuddly; a Country where everyone helps the little old lady cross the street, and the struggling girl trying to lift her suitcase up a flight of stairs, or a disabled man trying to reach food on the top shelf, or inviting a homeless drug addict round to Christmas dinner and letting him touch your wife’s breast. It all sounds lovely. But it’s a Tory plan. So obviously it isn’t all that it seems. Putting two and two together is not difficult, because this breed of Tory isn’t much better than the last breed at hiding their sinister motives.

Tories and their supporters are notoriously unable to critique their dogmatically held economic principles, no matter how flawed or dangerous it is. They simply put a new mask on it, every couple of years. A rebranding. Putting sparkly bits on dog turd.

Compact Voice, an agreement between the Voluntary sector and the Government, took London Council to court over plans to cut £10mn worth of funding. They won the right to a judicial review, after the court found that the plans to cut funding to 200 projects for lower socio-economic areas of London failed to meet statutory equality duties. So given that it takes a court order to promote a Big Society that the Government is apparently massively in favour of…. what is going wrong?

First you must look at the current Tory leader. Margaret Thatcher. Actually, it’s a posher looking shinier version of the mad old witch, but it nevertheless, is Thatcher. Dogmatically gelling himself to out of date, unfounded economic principles that didn’t work last time, and wont work again. Economic principles that cause more misery than joy, and only work to enrich a few people; the same people who happen to be socially retarded bastards of the highest calibre.

Thatcher famously said “there’s no such thing as society“. This is exactly what David Cameron is saying when he tries to promote his “Big Society”. The mask behind the motive, is that people will volunteer in their communities, rescue libraries, save post offices. The problem is that local communities are being drained of all resources.

When you take the mask off, the choice is “run your library yourself, of we’re closing it down“. And that’s horrendous. It is no different to what Tories always attempt to do, it just has a new mask. It would seem that the “Big Society” is a clever PR stunt, to cover up the fact that the Government is taking money away from the public sector, washing its hands of all social responsibility, in order to fund a mass of tax cuts for the very wealthy. The evidence for this can be seen with the recent offshore Corporate tax rule change; the biggest change in its history. Public money is being taken away from your library, and given back to people who run a business in England, but store their profits elsewhere, and pay no tax on it. Not only has the offshore tax system been scraped, the Corporate tax rate will be dropped by 4% by 2014. Public money is being taken away from your child’s school, for purely ideological reasons, and given to the very rich in the form of tax cuts; the very same very rich people who happen to fund the Tory Party.

Last year, George Osborne stood up in Parliament and told us all he was instantly getting rid of 490,000 jobs. Half a million people unemployed, in less than ten seconds. The Tory backbenchers cheered in joy. The Big Society is the tedious and futile hope that the voluntary sector will suck up the jobs that have been, and will continue to be destroyed by the Government. When millions are unemployed and in desperate need, the Government is washing its hands of them, and telling the rest of us to deal with it. We didn’t create this mess. The Financial Sector; many of whom donate to the Tory party, and all of whom are taking home a mass of money in bonuses this year created the problems.

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:

“In Scotland we’re already delivering the big society. David Cameron’s big idea simply describes a lot of what already happens throughout Scotland’s third sector, from active volunteers in communities across the country to excellent public services run by charities.

“But government cuts are dangerously undermining our capacity to even continue the valuable work we were doing before the crash, never mind becoming the thriving third sector that Scotland so badly needs.

“Right now we’re on a knife- edge. The local lifelines that so many people rely on face vicious cuts, leaving the most vulnerable without the support they need. It’s going to take more than rhetoric to save our services.”

It is impossible to engage the Voluntary sector, when you are taking billions our of it, and giving a couple of million back whilst telling everyone you’re definitely funding it adequately. It is a joke. Most charity leaders don’t buy into it. They recognise that whilst Charity organisations face cuts of close to £5bn, plus the added issue of receiving less due to the scrapping of tax relief on donations, the promise of a couple of extra hundred million pounds, is minuscule. A £100mn “transition fund” is the equivalent of taking a loaf of bread away from you, handing you a slice of bread, and telling you to feed your family.

In fact, the Office for Civil Society’s promise of an extra £470mn for Voluntary organisations over the next four years, during a Parliament of intense Council cuts, is nothing in comparison to £500mn over the past three years. The Charity Commission will also be required to cut its funding by 27%.

Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, the Executive Director of the UKs leading voluntary and training service; “Community Service Volunteers” said:

“So there are a lot of very worthwhile programmes – for example volunteers working in child protection as promoted by the minister for children – which are now under threat of closure.”

Do not buy into the Big Society hype.
It is not just a cover for public sector cuts, it is a cover to transfer wealth to a very narrow wealthy elite, through a mass of Corporate tax breaks.
In plain, it is Tories being Tories.

Hate Jamie

I am pleased to announce that I have influenced someone enough, to send me a very touching email. He sought out my email address, and spent time crafting an extremely coherent and well thought out message, to which as you will see, I gratefully replied. (Click the image, to get the full view)

Following this, I then got this beautiful reply:

Instead of accepting my sexual invitation to “comprehend my islam” (admit it, you’d be proud too if you’d managed to create an innuendo out of comprehending a religion), he felt it necessary to tell me he was fucking my mother. Which is odd, because at the time of receiving this email, my mother was actually watching Eastenders. The BBC was fucking my mother, out of her licence fee contribution. Although, he does end the sentence with ‘not’, which I presume meant ‘now’. The T and W are far enough away from each other on the keyboard to suggest you’d have to be one chunky fingered illiterate nob end, to hit the wrong one. Unless of course, he genuinely meant ‘not’, in which case, the entire point of this email was to tell me that he wasn’t fucking my mother. Which is a relief. I don’t receive enough emails from people telling me they aren’t fucking a member of my family. It leaves me very paranoid. I end up thinking “Why is that man not approaching me to tell me he isn’t fucking my nan? He must be fucking my nan”. So I’d like to thank the sender of this emailing triumph, for taking the time out to reassure me that he is not in fact, having sex with my mother.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed my first hate mail.
Yours sincerely,
Beaner fuck x

A game played by “adults”

According to several sources, our wondrous new coalition government of nasty bastards, are to spend £4m on new “reintegration” centres in Afghanistan, to send unaccompanied Afghanistan child asylum seekers back to Afghanistan. This was announced, on the very same day that BBC News reported the deaths of 10 Nato troops, as fighting in Afghanistan escalated.

In an horrendous move to the right, it isn’t just immigration that the Tories intend to clamp down on, but now quite horrifically, it is children they have taken aim at. Overall, I find the idea of limiting immigration whilst further opening our borders to trade and capital, a silly idea based solely on the Colonial model of Nation States. But then, I find Nation States to be an outdated, and damaging principle. A silly social construct of National pride, that really has its origins around 1534 here in the UK, and is wholly inconsistent with a postmodern World built on Capitalist principles. But children, who really do not have a notion of this largely fatuous and arbitrary system of National borders, or trade, or capital flows, are now becoming the innocent victims of a game played by “grown ups“. I read the article, and just sat thinking how evil the whole idea of Nation States really is.

The Western World has spent decades destroying Afghanistan. We have armed the Taliban against the Soviets, because it suited us. In fact, in 1985, American President Ronald Reagan referred to the Taliban as;

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”

Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted recently, that the creation of the Taliban, was pretty much entirely down to the US. Which in turn, means the problems that Afghanistan, and in a sense, Pakistan now face, are largely due to the policies of the USA, in its vain attempts to defeat whomever they have designated an “enemy” in that particular decade:

“It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union.”

A decade later, an American oil company called Unocal attempted talks with the Taliban in an effort to secure the rights to a major oil pipeline that would shoot through Afghanistan. Unocal were forced to back out, after they were criticised for dealing with the Taliban.

Add another decade, and George Bush bombed the entire Country back into the stone age, for no real reason whatsoever, whilst referring to the Taliban, as part of an axis of evil (it’s ironic that a fucking evil President, has the balls to refer to another regime as evil). The very same well equiped, and fundamentalist Taliban, that the US created and armed in the first place. The US didn’t seem to give much of a shit about the Taliban’s human rights record when Reagan was funding them. But then, the same can be said for the rather evil right winged groups throughout Latin America that Reagan’s administration funded. Reagan, should have been thrown in prison, and left to rot miserably in a cell for the rest of his life. Bill Clinton, is just as to blame.

According to the Times of India, 2001;

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.”

Apparently Americans are not too keen on their money being spent on keeping their population healthy, but are perfectly fine with $5bn being spent on arming crazed Religious fundamentalists, who are now responsible for mass oppression and child sex trafficking.

Given the not-too-surprising violence that is rife throughout Afghanistan, why would any genuinely decent person, suggest sending children anywhere near a country like that? If I were Prime Minister, not only would I not give two shits about the moronic English Nationalists who must now be at home wanking furiously over this; i’d happily tell them they are scum; i’d also publicly state that there is absolutely no way I am sending any child into a Country whose child sex trafficking market is one of the biggest in the World, regardless of our pathetic sense of National Pride. Regardless of our immigration and asylum policies, regardless of the “burden” to tax payers. Regardless of their skin colour or what language they can or cant speak. They are children. And I could not live with myself, if I had openly agreed to hand a child back to a Country in the midst of war, and losing a battle against child sex trafficking. Especially given that the UK, has had a helping hand in destroying that Country in the first place. It strikes me as being a fundamental problem with the way the World works, that we have billions to give to dirty banks and bad business practice, which in turn contributed to the huge pension packages of people like Sir Freddy Goodwin, who fucked the entire system and now lives in luxury; but we complain incessantly about any money from the tax payer, going to help children who happen to have a different skin colour.

A US State Department Report on Human Trafficking, from 2009, reported:

Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for commercial sexual exploitation, forced marriage to settle debts or disputes, forced begging, as well as forced labor or debt bondage in brick kilns, carpet-making factories, and domestic service. Afghan children are also trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor, particularly in Pakistan’s carpet factories, and forced marriage. Boys are promised enrollment in Islamic schools in Pakistan, but instead are trafficked to camps for paramilitary training by extremist groups. Afghan women and girls are trafficked within the country and to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation and temporary marriages. Some Afghan men force their wives or daughters into prostitution. Afghan men are trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor and debt bondage, as well as to Greece for forced labor in the agriculture or construction sectors. Afghanistan is also a destination for women and girls from Iran, Tajikistan, and possibly China trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Tajik women are also believed to be trafficked through Afghanistan to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation. Trafficked Iranian women transit Afghanistan en route to Pakistan.

Not only that, but according to the World Fact Book:

Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government’s inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan’s living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world.

It does not matter how the children found their way to the UK. Whether they were trafficked here, whether they were sent by their parents, or whether they found their own way here out of desperation, it is irrelevant. Motives, are irrelevant. They are children. They are not a pawn in an adult game of economic warfare and its obsession with labeling people “illegal” if they weren’t born here. If a couple of pence in every pound of tax money goes to helping these children, rather than sending them to hell, then good! We are a decent country, with a sense of compassion built into us. We are not a country of the social Right. The Liberal Democrats, should be utterly ashamed of this.

This represents a major shift to the social Right, for the Tories. It shows that they have indeed wore a moderate mask for the past few years; hidden behind moderate centre-right rhetoric, but scratch gently below the surface, and we are confronted with the same old vicious, nasty party of old. A party without a sense of human decency, who focus solely on economically driven policies rather than human policies.

Left Wing Progressives, should work together to force real economic and social policy change. We need to understand how much the West is to blame for the hellhole of Afghanistan. We cannot simply exploit countries for the benefit of our business interests, rip the country to shreds, and then throw their children onto the scrap heap. Afghanistan has spent decades as a pawn in a game played by “adults“.

The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.

The Church of Me

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” – Thomas Jefferson

I’ve always wondered where the line between inventive cult nonsense, and respectful religion is crossed. If I were to say I believed in a talking prophetic snake that lives in a cave on Saturn, i’d be told i’m crazy. Yet, a story in which a man is born to a woman who has never even so much as had sex, lives a miracle filled life, dies, raises from the dead like a zombie messiah, walks around for a while, and then ascends into Heaven, is highly respected, and actually has political influence, purely because billions of people believe in it? A factitious God of an old Testament that appears to resemble tyrannical dictators throughout history, filled with gratuitous hate, than a loving God; but it must be respected? Why? It is illogical to be disrespectful to another human being based on their sexuality or their race or their gender, something they have no control over, however their religious belief is simply a concept, an idea, ideas do not demand respect inherently.

Religious indoctrination, is somewhat unnerving and in my humble opinion, impossibly detrimental to the workings of society and the relationships we form. Homosexuality is looked down upon for no justifiable reason; kids are made to say prayer in school without actually given the choice of what they want to believe; non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of great humanitarian works they may undertake; candidates for President have their religious beliefs tested before facing election; Gospels that contradict each other, leave out important parts of the Story (Jesus virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels); the wars it causes, the lies it thrives on, the terrible acts people have taken in it’s name. It’s all so wrong.

It amazes me that the line between absolute nonsense and respectful religion is not crossed because there is any sort of empirical evidence, but crossed simply because more people chose to believe it. Some of those, will regard anyone who dares to question them, impertinent heathens destined for hell. The restrictions the system of what it’s followers deem to be universal God-given facts, places on the World have not improved the World. It hasn’t made the World a safe haven. We’re not peaceful, we’re not safe, we’re at the most dangerous point in history. Religious dogma and the intolerance it lives off to feed it’s outdated traditions, is living in the middle ages.

For me, spirituality is an inward manifestation of insecurities, imperfections and a deep desire for guidance. I myself, rely on the Tao Te Ching when my own personal insecurities demand guidance and reassurance that my philosophical and sociological thoughts and opinions are both logical and respectful. Spirituality is not something to be forced onto society as a whole. I would not dream of telling people that they either conform to my way, or be damned. I do not condemn Christians, they are entitled to believe as they wish. I merely condemn the need to force religion onto others, through political process and the education system.

I cannot prove that there is no God. Nobody has that authority. But similarly, I cannot prove that there is a God. I am simply against mass indoctrination based on superstition and out dated tradition. You and I have equally unknowing minds, whether you’re a preacher or an expert in Biblical studies or an Atheist. You have no deeper understanding of the workings of the Universe than I do. You are not an expert.

It is my general belief, my own deeply held Philosophy that you should act always according to the maxim, that you do to others that which you have problem having done to you. If you wish to sleep around, fine. If you wish to be straight or gay or a transsexual, fine. If you wish to do drugs, fine. If you wish to drink, fine. It is your decision. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, there is no problem. As long as you’re friendly, polite, and well intentioned, then nothing else matters. A bigoted, supremely prejudice myth based God certainly doesn’t matter.

Of course the Story of Jesus, and what he wants and expects, has been hijacked by the Right Wing, for it’s “freedom” agenda, which apparently doesn’t take into account the fact that the wealthy preachers, Popes and ministers are as unlikely to get into their heaven as an agnostic such as myself is. I may be a bit controversial here, but judging by Jesus’ standards, i’d say he’d be condemned as a Socialist by today’s standards. Otherwise those lepers would have had to produced their insurance documents before being cured. The bread and the fish would have been distributed to the hardest working, or those who were the sons of the hardest working. Acts 2:44-45 reads like a section of a Socialist manifesto: “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” He certainly didn’t preach the message of ruthless competition and winner takes all wealth. I’d go one step further, and say that by Biblical accounts, Jesus was executed, because he supported the less fortunate and so threatened the wealth of the rich.

It amazes me that Christianity (especially American Christianity) has developed almost an entirely separate sect, to the teachings of Jesus. They some how manage to combine the teachings of Jesus, with Nationalism, with Capitalism, and with the odd skewed understanding of “traditional marriage“, despite all three of those, going against everything Jesus ever taught. If you’re going to insist that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be married on religious grounds, then perhaps I could count on your support when I try to marry six wives, like King David. Or when I try to pass a law requiring all the brothers of dead men, to marry their dead brother’s widow and have children, as sanctioned in Matthew 22:24. (“Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“). Why just go after homosexuals? Why not the brothers of dead men, who haven’t married their brother’s widow? Surely they’re sinning too? Christianity itself was a product of it’s time. It has no relevance today. The only basis it has, it to allow those with deeply held prejudice and intolerant views, to cite the Bible for justification. Much of the time (as is the case with the entire Catholic Church), they are so far off the mark of Biblical teachings, i’m almost inclined to believe i’m more of a Christian than the Catholic Church could ever be.

If it is true, that hell is going to be packed with Atheists, sexually promiscuous women, scientists, those who undertook great acts of kindness but weren’t Christian, Democrat Presidents, anyone who has ever touched pigskin, among others – then Hell is the fun and happy place to be! If the option is “Become a gay hating Republican, or go to Hell“, then i’m afraid it’s Hell every time. If my mother, my father, my grandparents, me, and all of my friends who do not subscribe to Christian doctrine are damned to an eternity in a torturous Hell, then the God that created these ridiculous rules, is a God I want nothing to do with.

And so with all of that in mind, I have decided to formulate my own religious system of beliefs, based on the following points.

Thou shall treat others, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religious belief, as equal to yourself.

Wednesday is to be the day of sex. This is important to my new Religion because sex is the binding essence of all life. And let’s face it, we’d all quite like to have sexual freedom.

A man can lie with another man as he would a woman, if he so wishes. To ignore your true feelings and to oppress your sexuality, for this is unnatural. (Leviticus 18:22)

Anyone who offers their daughters up to be raped by towns people (even if it is to save angels) is not the good guy! (Genesis 19:8)

No one shall ever say “My country is a Christian country“. Especially when (as is the case with the U.S.A), it isn’t, and never was.

There will be no list that says “Thou shalt not murder“, because it’s common sense, it didn’t need writing down, it isn’t morality based on Religious beliefs. Instead, we shall replace pointless Jealous-God Commandments like “Do not have any other gods before me“, and replace with much more principled and practical moral codes (which the Catholic Church could really benefit from) like “Thou shalt not rape, molest, slaughter, torture, or intentionally hurt another“.

If you’re a Politician, your belief in this religion, shall not interfere with your duties to the public. You shall not try to influence policy in the direction of religious dogma.

My birth will be determined, three hundred years after i’ve died, by Roman dictators.

Touching pig skin is not dirty, any God who says it is, is just being pedantic.

Two thousand year old scribblings, do not constitute “absolute truth“.

Creating light, after the Earth and Heavens, is just ridiculous. God (me) created light first. I’ll create the sun first. Because there would be no way to distinguish day from night otherwise, and that’d be a ridiculous way to spend, let’s say, the first three days. (Genesis 1:16)

When I die, please Gospel of Jamie writers, let’s agree what my last words were. I don’t want three different versions, like with Matthew, Luke and John.

Homosexuals can marry. Why should they be excluded from the misery of marriage?

Just so you know, I probably wont spend more than an hour a day, blessing America.

Good deeds will get you into my heaven!

Believing, by blind faith, rejecting all evidence to the contrary, is the great catastrophe of mankind.

If something good happens to you, you will not be required to say “God blessed me, thank you Lord“, whilst ignoring the plight of millions in extreme poverty. I’d be a shit God to bless Britney Spears with the ability to get rich and win awards, and yet ignore millions of others. If good things happen to you, I really don’t need you to thank me on National Television.

Money is not the driving force of life. Less is more.

You cannot charge money for anything with my name on it. There will be no huge Vatican like building. Any money donated will go on community projects (Communist God?).

You may wear clothing woven from two different types of material. It would be a most ridiculous and pointless rule ever suggested (Leviticus 19:19).

Women are not created for the servitude of men. To suggest otherwise, is just more prejudice, bigoted nonsense (I Corinthians 11:8-9).

Women may be in a position of power (1 Tim 2:12).

You may not sell your daughter, nor any person, into slavery. (Exodus 21:7).

You may lust after whomever you wish, because it’s perfectly natural, everyone does it (Matthew 5:28).

You may associate with Atheists (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

Let’s please not celebrate the traditional marriage. Between man and woman. And between the man and his concubines (II Sam 5:13). And that marriage between a believer and non-believer is forbidden(Gen 24:3). And that if there is no decent man, single women should get their father’s drunk, and sleep with their dads (Genesis 19:31-36). Biblical marriage is just a nightmare.

It is not acceptable to pick and choose passages, just to attempt to justify your own hatreds.

Please understand, that Evolution doesn’t mean your great grandfather once slept with a monkey. That’s not how it works.

It is okay if you do not take the Bible seriously. You are a free, rational thinking, entity. You are free to believe whatever you so wish, you are free to think, without fear of punishment for those beliefs.

Join the Church of Jamie today!

The impracticable me

I’m no expert in anything, but from what little I do know…….

I can confidently walk you through events leading up to the collapse of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.
I can talk you through the life of Emperor Trajan and a little about Emperor Nero.
I can offer you advice on why big Government is no better or worse than small Government.
I can explain The Origin of Species and how a slug is just as evolved as Humanity.
I will argue against you until you cannot take it anymore, when you tell me a Fox is “vermin”.
I can recount sections of the life of Winston Churchill from his time as First Lord of Admiralty, to his Premiership.
I can explain Taoism and it’s positive spiritual softness on life.
I can tell you why I believe Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man is one of the most important documents in history.
I will defend the right of any man or woman to fall in love and marry whomever they wish – gay or straight without a bigot telling me that their actions are “immoral”.
I’m able to gratuitously absorb words that cannot be used in every day conversation, because no one else understands the meaning of.
I can tell you why I don’t believe a 3% tax hike on those earning above $250,000 is somehow Socialist.
I can seemingly make people believe i’m ACTUALLY a gay hating racist Republican.
I’m happy to call myself a sexually immoral, agnostic, left wing, liberal hippy.
I judge you when you spell “lyk dis” because it’s horribly lazy.
I’ll probably chose to ignore you when you tell me that “immigrants are taking all our jobs” because your ignorance makes me pity you.
I believe in your right to believe in whatever you chose, but when you try to tell others that according to YOUR God, they’re immoral, I suddenly lose all respect for you.
I can explain to you the events surrounding the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the 16th Century along with Tudor history.
I can spend all night reading Rene Descartes, or Kierkegaard, and although I understand their principles, I still find myself utterly confused.
I can explain why Franklin Roosevelt is my favourite President of the 20th Century.
I can tell you why I admire Tony Benn.
I can argue with you that the dominance of the American economic empire might not last too much.

I scratch the service of many different subjects; able to do, tell you, walk you through, explain, advise and argue, and yet I have absolutely no idea what I want to do with my life, no career, no profitable practical skill, and no reasonable path to follow. I cannot fix a radiator, I cannot make bread, I cannot make a desk, I cannot change my voice to suit office life, I have a terrible phone manner with customers, I wouldn’t make a good boss, I’m judgemental, I have a trust issue with “management”, I have puerile, misplaced resentment toward authority, I have the rather fatuous need to question absolutely everything that I’m told, and I cannot save lives.
I have an inexplicable need to learn the obscure and pointless; with which no one else cares to understand. It doesn’t help life. It doesn’t provide income. It’s largely pointless. But no matter how insecure or worried I may feel, my mind has a calming, felicitous way of telling me everything will be okay, despite that fact that I always – rather obsessively – need to be told it’ll be okay by someone else.
I can talk about a lot of different subjects, I just cannot possibly commit to one life path. And yet, I have to admit, I quite like being Futile.

The joy of sexual liberation

“One minute, he’s just a teenage lad in Alaska having joyful unprotected sex, the next minute- get to the Republican Convention! I think that is the best safe sex message of all time. ‘Use a condom, or become Republican!’ “ – Russell Brand

When a woman keeps a wild ape, and it one day acts like a wild ape, resulting in it being killed, my instant reaction is “poor ape”. When a bull fighter dies bullfighting, my instant reaction is “the bull didn’t want to be there, so I really don’t care that you’ve died”. When an ape is shot, for being an ape, I feel for the ape. I do not however, feel that Ape Legislation is needed to curb this in the future. It’s an unfortunate and mad episode that probably wont be repeated. End of discussion.

Similarly, when a fourteen year old boy impregnates a girl, my instant reaction is “aah bad luck“. Controversial as that might be, when suddenly talk of “We need more abstinence teaching” erupts, I find myself somewhat bemused and I must confess, amused. Why are they wasting their time telling me what I already know, when they could be doing something useful, like teaching the benefit of love and acceptance, understanding and tolerance? Something that will actually matter in the long run, instead preaching abstinence to a bunch of horny teenagers who will ignore everything you’ve said the moment the classroom door swings open for break time?

They could have spent six hours a day teaching me the benefits and joy of not having sex, when I was a teenager; nothing was going to stop me. It was almost like the grey haired, grey skinned Conservatives who evidently lost their personalities around about the 1970s were telling me in their equally grey, drab, lugubrious, monotone voices “We weren’t sexually delinquent, and look at us now!!” and i’m sat there thinking “yeeeeaaaah, i’m going to do the exact opposite of what you did.“

During sex education at my school, I do not remember much of what was said. Mainly due to my overbearing sex drive that still burdens my existence to this day, informing me that the woman at the front of the class showing us all how to shove a condom on a cucumber, has a great pair of tits. Abstinence is almost telling me it’s wrong and somehow “different” to find a joy in casual sex. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t different. It’s how we’d all be if society accepted it. I knew damn well that the safest form of contraception was to not have sex, but if the indelibly attractive girl sat two seats infront of me were to turn round and say “Hey Jamie, let’s have sex!“, i’d have been nude and waiting with a bed, some romantic music, and a candle (or rushing off her with me to the school toilets – more likely) before she’d finished the sentence. In the years that followed, I was a bit of a slut, and I loved it. I was suspicious, and still am (people who worked with me who read this blog, or went to school with me, who read this blog will attest to this) of authority. I always felt like I was being forced to be something i’m not. That I must be how authority wants me to be, whether that authority was a boss, a teacher or a man-made “God” (If the Jonas Brothers go to heaven, I really don’t want to go to heaven), there was always something other than my mind, telling me how to be a good person, and it conflicted with my own ideals, it seemed to contradict itself. The same people who were telling me that a good wholesome christian family was morally superior, were telling me that immigrants are ruining Britain and homosexuality isn’t natural. My idea of love and responsibility to fellow man did not follow theirs. No amount of adults (especially given that my teacher was pregnant at the time) telling me that the best option in a scenario that included me, an incredibly attractive girl and her saying “let’s have sex” would be for me to say “hey, let’s just cuddle” were going to bring me over to what I saw as their restrictive and soul destroying Sex-Nazi regime.

They still aren’t.

I have wonderful philosophy of the sexual liberation kind. An insatiable yet desirous mind like mine is such a beautiful contradiction. I’m the (some would say) disturbed kind who will see a feminist take her bra off to burn it and instead of thinking “I support your cause!!!”, i’m thinking “Bra off? She’s well up for it”. I think people know my kind as “ignorant”, I simply know my kind as “men”.

I can’t go through a day without spotting an attractive lady; a fleeting smile on a train station platform, a casual glance in a shop – and trying to act disastrously cool. The addition of the adverb ‘disastrously’ is needed, believe me. It has to be used to describe how I become when presented with such beauty. Illustrating this point perfectly; two incredibly attractive women strolled past me a year or two back, and whilst I dedicated the limited supply of energy I could to looking somewhat desirable, I tripped over. Noticing that I had committed irrevocably to the falling in an overly dramatic way, I felt I had to continue the over dramatic fall until it’s rightful conclusion, which just so happened to be an incredibly camp squeal and for the first and only time in my life, for some reason, found my self saying to the girls as they walked by laughing at the twat on the floor…. “oooooo what am I like ey?“……. Smooooooooooth.

I cannot fault anyone for having a high sex drive, and enjoying themselves. You could have slept with 2000 men or women, if you enjoy sex, then go for it. If you want to wait for the right person and have a regimented sex life, then fine, you’re individual, that’s your right. Labels such as “tart” and “slut” are not necessary.

So with that said, I did some research.
Over at goodmorals.com (When it comes to sex, me and good morals don’t mix too well, so this site was already setting alarm bells off, I sense I was about to be told off) the author had a few words to say about my sort of philosophy, and so I want to argue some of her points now, with a deep, scrupulous answer to justify my ideal of free love and salacious togetherness…….

She uses this to highlight why women are being used as sexual objects by men….
“Consider: At a daily beer-chugging contest in Cancun, boys “punish” girls who spill a drop by demanding a “breast-flashing.” A female diarist reports that “Megan and Anna” were chosen by the guys up on stage to run into the ocean and do a bathing-suit swap with the guys.”

- Is Cancun expensive? That sounds magnificent. Do Megan and Anna have Facebook? They sound fun! They certainly don’t sound like they feel dirty and raped. In fact, in that situation, and knowing the minds of young men, Megan and Anna were much more in control of those boys than vice versa.

“In a Penthouse-sponsored contest, a male audience shouts for young women to “take it off,” and many comply. “

- It’s like a filthy story. The debaucharous swines. I tell you, i’d be the first to cover my eyes, until the evil licentious acts stop. Yeah that’s a lie.

“……not to our daughters’ liberation, but to their debasement.”

- And I’d like to thank the parents of such girls for adding to my market.

“while most boys just want to have fun, so long as they can find a willing partner.”

- Are “good morals” and “fun” impossible to reconcile? If the subjective nature of “Good morals” leads me to a boring sex life, whilst frustration and stress takes over my life, then I think i’ll leave the ‘ole good moral thing to someone else.

“Second, they respected and encouraged girls’ natural modesty. In their view, modesty — the quality which leads human beings to avoid sexual displays — acts as a kind of armor to protect girls’ sexual vulnerability.”

- I never realised all women had such weak minds. Is it REALLY us men who are leading them to a terrible life of sexual fun and excitement that’s the problem? Or is it patronising snobs like the author of this site, presuming all women don’t have the power to say “no”. And this modesty thing she speaks of can fuck off. Excuse my lack of eloquence.

“Far from oppressing girls, modesty puts them on equal footing with boys, by prompting them to avoid casual sex while they search for a suitable lifelong partner.”

- That doesn’t put her on an equal footing with men!!! An equal footing with men, would mean all women were fantastically easy to bed. They aren’t. In fact, women hold much more sexual power than men! You flash your boobs my way, and I’ll happily rob a bank for you. That’s power!

“Is it only girls who lose in a pornographic culture? No, boys suffer too. For starters, they grow up confused.”

- I’m not confused. Never have been. I like sex. I like casual sex. I like relationship sex. If someone wants to sleep with thousands of people, because they enjoy it, I encourage them to. Similarly, if someone wants to wait for that one special person, although I couldn’t do such a thing, I encourage them. Go with whatever you feel is right for you. For me, what is right, is enjoying life.

“By delaying sex, girls inspire boys to strive to be worthy of them. They help boys learn to consider others’ needs and desires, and prepare them to assume the obligations of home and family.”

- By delaying sex, you’re punishing me, for not washing the dishes or something. You cannot control human nature. Some of us have high sex drives, some of us don’t. You cannot impose universal rules or principles when it comes to consenting adults. I reject the suggestion that because I quite like to … you know….. enjoy myself as it were, i’m somehow unable to consider the needs of others. If I get into Politics like I hope to, it will be purely to help those less fortunate, because the welfare of those who are unable to speak for themselves politically, I care deeply about. And of course, if they happen to be pretty, bonus!

“We buy our girls postage-stamp size tops and skirts, and drive them to movies that glamorize promiscuity.”

- I cannot thank you enough.

I wonder if the author of that site sees a Calvin Klein advert, full of muscle bound men in tight underwear and says “those poor men, they look like they’re having fun, but really…… they’re being used and exploited.”

Joking aside, why is sex such a taboo? Sex is supposed to be fun, exciting, pleasurable, and relaxing. I like the idea of sexual liberation. I never “matured” when it came to sex. I still giggle at an equivocated form of language I may have thrown together that in my mind is a magnificent innuendo, but in the minds of other’s is just a little too puerile. (Admittedly, sleeping with a girl, who’s clearly enjoying herself, and ignoring, with alarming skill, her cat sitting at the end of the bed watching every thing with it’s one working eye that appeared to say “you dirty fuckers” is a real passion killer for me…… never again… I learned from that)………..I believe in sex, free from shackles of good wholesome Christian based morality. I love the mellifluous sound of the phrase “sexual liberation” and impunity in the same way that I love immigration impunity, total freedom to roam, total freedom to fuck….. that’s my beautifully crafted political position for when I run as President of the World (It beats “Make love not war“). Be gay if you want to be gay. Sleep with whoever you want to sleep with. Attach or detach any ‘feelings’ that you feel may or may not be needed for a sexual relationship to exist. We’re here for seventy years and then, nothing. Have sex with whoever you want to, love everyone regardless of their differences, live for peace and justice, reject malice, ignore racial boundaries, help those who need it, and enjoy yourself!
Stop worrying!

Now, let’s shag!

Russell Brand Live

“To me a heaven would be a big bull ring with me holding two barrera seats and a trout stream outside that no one else was allowed to fish in and two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on 9 different floors” – Ernest Hemingway

Please…. please… tell me the man above, does not represent Conservative America as a whole?
Brand said of those who keep saying “he’s our President, not yours!!! Sort your own politics out before insulting ours!”…… If that’s the case, stay out of the affairs of the rest of the World. And they speak as if we don’t think our own politicians are just as shit as America’s politicians.

****

Americans are not exactly renowned throughout the rest of the World for their edgy sense of humour, which acts as no surprise when I remember seeing the headline in our papers over here in the UK that Russell Brand’s performance as the host of the 2008 MTV VMA awards didn’t go down too well with our American cousins. England however, loved it.

The VMAs aren’t popular over here. There is nothing more cringeworthy than seeing a bunch of over paid minimally talented musicians thank Jesus for a largely pointless award (Although given that Jesus is spending his time helping Chris Brown win best video at a ridiculous award show, it helps to explain his lack of interest in global poverty around the World). However, Russell Brand (with the exception of those who read The Daily Mail) is incredibly popular over here. Sell out tour after sell out tour, fast selling DVDs and known for his incredibly friendly yet child like nature. We know he has a salacious mind, we know he’s sexually liberated, and we know when you put him in a room with horrible little Christian pop star idiots who have a problem with anyone who likes sex, he’s going to have a field day.

This weekend, my beautiful girlfriend and I went to see Russell Brand perform live in Nottingham. This tour is off the back of the scandals he’s recently been involved in. These involve Sachsgate, which in my childish mind, and those like me, was very funny. And of course, the fantastic digs during the VMAs last year. Namely, calling George Bush, “that retarded cowboy fella, who wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors in our country” and the Jonas Brothers for their ridiculous yet very public vow of celebacy and those horrible rings they wear. When the Bush joke didn’t go too well in America, Brand said he went back stage and he along with his writing partner had to scrap the jokes they’d written, knowing that the Americans just don’t understand our humour.

However, in Nottingham, Brand told us those jokes. They had the audience laughing for a very long time. He certainly made the right choice not to use them at the VMAs, if the American Right can’t handle Bush jokes and the Jonas’s “Professional Virginity jokes” they would have exploded in a fountain of humourless droplets when hearing the other jokes he had planned. Whilst we were in tears of laughter, Brand said “Yeah thanks, could of done with you there on the night though!” Which I thought was a nice little touch.

I will keep them to myself, just in case 14 year old American Girls who seem to think the Jonas’s are heroes, decides it’s wrong to be taking the piss out of the Kanye West, and Michael Jackson. Or in case Jordin Sparks decides to say, with much cringe worthiness again … “I just wanna say, it’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?“….. I guess in her mind, i’d be classed as a slut…… which, i’m now even more proud of. As Brand said “A bit of sex never hurt anyone“. I’ve never labelled anybody a slut for enjoying sex. If you want to have sex with as many people as possible because you enjoy sex, like Hemingway enjoyed sex, like Brand enjoys sex…. then go for it! Sexual liberation is a beautiful thing!

Yahoo Questions revolving around whether all Americans now hate Brand, have comments (which really do fall into the realm of disbelief) like….” I’m from America and personally this guy was the worst piece of crap to host the VMAs. I could’ve stood up there and made better jokes than that unknown goofy looking idiot. ” ……… These kinds of incredibly ridiculous comments, add to the reason why those of us who understand his humour, his quick witted comments, his incredible mind, are slowly coming to consider Russell Brand, like Ricky Gervais, to be a comedy genius.

Brand, on Friday night read us all a list of his favourite death threats from Americans after the VMAs.
One guy, sent a rather amusing death threat, to which Brand amusingly replied to with…

The show focused a lot on how he was perceived in America and the crazy death threats he received. If Right Winged America doesn’t like anybody insulting their ex-President; and if Right Winged America doesn’t like the idea of sexual freedom, I think it’s best that pretty much all of our comedians and our Comedy shows don’t try to cross the Atlantic any time soon.

For us, Russell Brand is possibly the most intelligent yet naive, brilliant yet child like in his mannerisms, sex crazed yet civil and polite, able to poke fun at himself but with such egotism and self awareness it’s beautifully crafted. It seemed from his live show that the past year of controversy he has caused, was part of a design. The nice things Brand has done, have not been widely publicised (like here and here) instead largely going unnoticed.

He speaks for a generation of Brits who do not view the World through the hate filled specs of the Right Wing. He speaks as a Libertine, who accept that sex shouldn’t be a taboo and shouldn’t be strictly confined to ‘loving couples’ that it should be embraced and enjoyed and the scare tactics attached to it by institutions like the Church should not be taken seriously.. He speaks as someone from a Working class background whose vocabulary and vast literary knowledge outweighs that of most English Masters students. And his ability to destroy the arguments of those Far Right Winged Patriots and Nationalists is beyond that of any Politician throughout the Country. America doesn’t understand, because America has never understood our humour, much like we don’t understand their often misplaced and slightly ignorant Patriotism.

I wont tar every American as being devoid of all humour. Because that would be untrue and harsh. A lot of Americans “get it”. A lot just don’t find him funny, not because they hate him, but purely because Brand is not to their taste, which is fair enough. But those Americans who find him offensive and actually took the time out to complain that he insulted Bush, should be ashamed that they find comedy insulting, yet a President who lies and cheats his way through eight years they have no problem with.

British humour has always stood way above American humour for my taste. I find light hearted Sein Feld-like comedy boring, predictable, and replayed over and over again in shows like Frasier and Friends. I love controversy. I love intelligent comedy that isn’t just catering to a Conservative audience. I love “different”, and for that reason, Russell Brand remains one of my favourite comedians.

Still, I had a fun weekend. Here’s me with a few friends. If you happen to be a Christian pop star, it’s probably best you avert your eyes, because you’re about to see me, being kissed by a female friend, who then in the next picture, grabs the breast of my lovely girlfriend. THE FIENDS!

cheek kissing

I never know how to greet women.
How odd does that sound? A simple “hello” would probably suffice. I mean, when they lean in close for a kiss-cheek-greeting, my eyes widen and I panic. When I say “panic” I don’t mean that I run away with my arms in the air, shouting “ARRRGGGH”, that would make it impossible to leave the house ever again. I’m not that bad. But I never know what to do. Do I decide which cheek to go for? Do they present the cheek they want kissing? Do they want both cheeks kissing? If they don’t mention how many cheeks will be involved in this kiss greeting, do I choose? If they only wanted one cheek kissing, and I go for the second cheek, and they pull away before I get there, what do I say? “I liked the taste of the first one so I thought ‘why not’ “? Normally if i’m involved in kissing, my hands are drawn to the breasts, surely that’s not appropriate? What the fuck is wrong with a handshake? They’re easy. They require now strategy beforehand, no tactic. Cheek kissing has no guidelines! It’s chaos!

I see people doing it all the time. Quickly. Well placed. Like they’ve been doing it for years. “I’ve been kissing cheeks for ten years now, i know the theory inside out.” They know which cheek to go for, how long to kiss for, the appropriate level of “mwah” noises to make, and they slowly get into the flow of conversation, and i’m stood in awe. The lack of awkwardness, the control of chaos, is beautiful. Like when children kick a football purposely against the miserable old man’s fence, and he keeps coming out to yell at them, every time, they throw him the stick of childishness, and he chases it, those kids have control of that chaos!!!

You cannot possibly understand the indelible feeling of awkwardness when you kiss one cheek, and then pull away, whilst they (in slow motion) produce the second cheek that you now aren’t kissing. And then you have to go back in, which makes it seem like you didn’t want to kiss the cheek in the first place, which in turn acts not as an intended greeting, but she now feels a sharp sense of rejection.

Similarly, you cannot possibly understand the embarrassment felt when as a male, I go to kiss the second cheek and she pulls away expecting the cheeking kissing fun to have stopped after the first. She was content with one cheek kiss. Any further kissing of cheeks, she has not consented to. You are essentially, a face rapist.

No amount of face raping will ever come close to the most horrendous scenario known to the World of cheek kissing. It involves your partner’s mother, or grandma, or aunty, someone you feel slightly uncomfortable sticking your lips on in the first place. It involves aiming for one cheek, strategically going for that left cheek, you’ve planned it, you’re going in, you’re a cheek kissing Romeo right now………… and then, just as you go to kiss that left cheek, she turns to offer her right cheek, and you’ve managed to miss both, getting her lips. Let’s not mince our words up, let’s say it like it is, you’re now kissing your partner’s mum. You can bet that she will recoil in horror. You start wondering what the best way to end your life would be. And then from nowhere, your partner’s grandma smiles provocatively in your direction…………………….

I want I want I want

I want to be a writer, paid to lay my mind out with a sea of words that make you put the book to one side, and think about what was just said, relating it to your own inner most thoughts in the same way that Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg have done for me. Like Keats, I want my “name writ in water”.

I want to be a Photographer who’s photos make you realise that a split second in time, the essence of a moment forever passed has been captured forever, for the World to see.

I want to be a Philosopher trying to make sense of the World, abandoning all of my untrustworthy, lugubrious pre-conceptions about life and reforming them on my own, with nothing taught by anyone else, like a modern day Descartes.

I want to be a Politican, dedicated to helping those less fortunate, the down and outs, the people who do not succumb to the fetish for money, the ones who want to live but feel abandoned by a flawed system. The ones who need that little bit of support, who do not have it in them to be bank managers, but are still people.

I want to be a journalist, bringing the World into the small homes of a hungry-for-news British public. A decent journalist, not the type who will destroy lives just to bag a story on Britney Spears and earn a fortune in the process.

I want to be a charity worker in Africa, who notices that it isn’t just a case of “teaching a man to fish and he’ll learn to feed his family over time”, that these people need direct help now. Who, even if he helps one person live a better life, knows it’s worth it, much more so than slaving in an office in Leicester every day for no good reason.

I want to be a musician, who’s songs inspire a generation. A Dylan of the new fast World, who creates a legacy, whose canvas is silence to be painted on by sound.

I want to be a Premiership footballer, who fights to bring Leicester back into the Premiership and has Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United, not to mention Barcelona and Real Madrid all fighting to buy me.

I want everything and nothing. I want to be free to live a different life every so often, never getting too comfortable for too long. I want to go from girl to girl, and never get bored, until I find that one person who keeps the excitement alive and tames me. I want the poetic life that lies dormant within everyone, ready to explode like a star that cannot possibly hold itself in the same place a second longer. I want to find my sense of spirit and make peace with it, after chasing it for so long.

Confusion strikes

ARGH! I’m slowly going crazy!

Around about 2005 I had a horrible feeling of worthlessness. I hated my work, I hated wasting my days doing nothing. I became trapped in a routine I did not want. Luckily for me, I changed it. And again, became supremely happy.

I’m certainly not the sensitive type. I don’t take things to heart. I can deal with being criticised or insulted, it’s nothing that bothers me. I have a pretty loose sense of humour, and so can find the funny side of pretty much anything. It’s a defence mechanism, that shields me from my inner sensitive side.

Over the past few weeks i’ve been falling victim to my own inner madness. It’s not like it was in 2005, I don’t have the “worthless” feeling, because now, I almost want to be worthless when it comes to the rest of the World. I want to be worth something to myself, and i’ve slowly realised that when i’m working 9-5 doing the same shit every day, I’m ignoring myself. The cries of “get out!” from my mind are put to one side for the benefit of a monthly pay slip. I’ve got over that, and so my worthless feeling no longer exists. And in that sense, i’m pretty fucking happy. I certainly don’t dislike myself, in fact, quite the opposite. I love me!

This time though, I have a horrible sense of confusion that’s threatening to engulf every part of my life. And there is no way to shake it. I’m confused about work. I’m confused about my own intelligence. I’m confused about relationships and what I want. I’m confused about what is expected of me. I’m confused about why i’m sticking things out when all it’s doing is making me more unhappy. I’m confused when people say something overly positive about me, whether or not they really mean it. I’m confused as to why I feel both happy, and miserable at the same time. I’m confused about what I want out of life. I’m confused about who’s trustworthy and who’s just playing with me. I’m confused about pretty much everything, and it’s slowly driving me mad.

I can’t shake it. It keeps me awake, I spend my spare time trying to rationalise my confusion. It’s difficult to understand myself and so this is why I blog it, to try to make better sense of my current confusion. I find it impossible to just “talk” to anyone about how I feel. I get uncomfortable. I prefer to blog how I feel. But even then, I get confused and start again.

ARGH!!