Why I Love...(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais by The Clash

Been a while since I've posted a blog here, or indeed anywhere. And rather than it be a bitch or a whine, I thought I should write about something that I love and can't do without, musically.

The Clash will likely always be my favourite band, and though I tend to fall in and out of love with several of their songs as time passes, the top of a very impressive heap, will always be "(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais". This is one of those songs you either get or you don't. If you do, you'll clutch it very tightly to your heart, and if you don't...it's cool. The Clash are probably fortunate not to be branded racist now by alarmist, hand-wringing Lefties, what with song titles such as "White Riot" and then "(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais", but it should be recognised that both of those songs are written from the perspective of envy. In these songs, Strummer saw what black people in his community were doing and wished people of his own colour were that savvy, that angry, and that switched on and up for change.

The track starts with a count in and an accidental guitar sound, which serves to convince you that this is a live take, before juxtaposing an angry and abrasive guitar with Jones' reverb-drenched, high-pitched 'ooo'-ing melody line. It then kicks off into a, what is now a by-the-numbers, white-boy reggae riff. But back then, and for a band like The Clash, this was anything but by-the-numbers. This approach was among the first to knit punk and reggae together. The brick-through-a-window rage of earlier tracks such as White Riot and Career Opportunities were ostensibly missing, but a few listens to this track showed that it was still there but had been replaced by an anger more subtle, as Strummer and Jones stretched their songwriting chops, and each band member started to come into their own, musically. Take Paul Simonon, for example. The Clash's bass player was a massive influence on their appearance due to his affinity with art and a paint brush, but when the band started he was so inept at the bass that he took to writing the notes on the fretboard. This is so that when Jones told everyone it was "Going to a G there...", for example, Simonon knew where to put his fingers. To go from that to the sparse, less-is-more, massively effective bass line in this song, is quite something.

It is this musicality that set The Clash aside from other punk bands of the time. American psychologist Abraham Maslow, who devised the Hierarchy of Needs, once said that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. The Clash had started angry, and they were still really pissed off, but they were developing new tools and finding, through their influences, different ways to use them. Sometimes if you project your anger with a calm disposition, you can be way more affecting - and effective - than shouting and screaming the whole place down. By taking a different path, The Clash were ensuring that once punk had passed they would still be around. There's a saying, "The more now you are, the more then you'll be", which emos and chavs will no doubt wish they were mindful of when they look back on pictures of themselves in 20 years time. The Clash knew it, though. And they knew that by staying within the 3-chord-and-fuck-the-system mould of every other Sex Pistols wannabe, you were doomed to be a part of the past rather than forging the future.

In the first verse of the song, Strummer speaks of attending a concert to see, among others, Delroy Wilson and Leroy Smart. Hoping for a good show, he instead leaves disappointed, as these acts seem to have succumbed to commercialism. This initial disappointment bleeds into the rest of the song, which covers topics from the state of the country to the state of punk rock. This is impressive, to me. Strummer has highlighted, in a punk rock song, an unfortunate process which can sometimes occur - one disappointment can make you pay more attention to the other disappointments you were trying to ignore. One piss off and you suddenly become the world's biggest cynic. It snowballs. Cascades. I picture Strummer walking away from the concert, through the rainy streets of London, head down and collar up, heavy in disappointment and contemplation. He had been let down by the non-event of something that he had hoped would lift him. So he started to project his disappointment on to everything else he was thinking about and that was happening around him. The song is therefore quite cynical, but as George Carlin said, "Scratch any cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist".

Certainly, the idealism of the punk movement that The Clash had helped to create, had withered, and this had disappointed Joe by the time he wrote the song. In one verse he sings, "Punk rocker in the UK; They won't notice anyway: They're all too busy fighting; For a good place under the lighting". The punk movement, what was once something honest, that was to be a force for change, had descended into mindless violence and a misunderstanding of the ethos of the movement itself. Strummer suggests here that he is done with it. This is reinforced with the next few lines, "The new groups are not concerned; With what there is to be learned; They got Burton suits, they think it's funny; Turning rebellion into money". This last line was thought to be a dig at The Jam, who never really fitted in as punk rockers. Regardless of intended target, it shows that Strummer believed passionately in the potential of punk rock for change, and was crushed at the way it had been hijacked by the mainstream and then diluted, the ready money and easy fame draining it of its previous power and energy. The Pistols and The Clash had lived in squats and had no money. They were driven by creativity and passion, not the expectation of record deals, groupies, and sports cars. These new groups, they hadn't earned it. They were being soaked up by record labels desperate to jump on the punk-rock bandwagon, and were handed big advances to produce second-rate albums which could be sold to the kids who were caught up in a fad.

This is a common occurrence - money infecting a movement. Things that are pure and original and inspiring are that way because their originators have been through hell to get there. Movements like punk rock are fueled by everything but money, really. But such is the influence of the movement that many want to become a part of it. Ultimately it becomes commonplace, bland, and vanilla. Success becomes a double-edged sword. If you want your message to be heard, you have to go mainstream, you have to use the biggest platform you can find. People would slate Rage Against The Machine for signing to Epic Records and being label mates with Michael Jackson. But it's analogous to either appearing on the 6 o' clock news to communicate your ideas, or tweeting them out to 120 followers, hoping you'll go viral. Playing the corporate game then becomes a necessary evil. You give away credibility, but you take the opportunity for mass communication you now have. Strummer would have known this surely, but he no doubt hoped it would go another way. Additionally, in the case of The Clash, the rumour is that any money they made from their record deal was absorbed by the bank account of their manager, Bernie Rhodes. Maybe Rhodes could defend his thievery as a way of keeping his band hungry, angry, and passionate.

What strikes me most about some of the final lyrics are the way they are still relevant, "All over, people changing their votes; Along with their overcoats; If Adolf Hitler, flew in here today; They'd send a limousine anyway". In just those few lines, Strummer says enough for a lifetime. Certainly today in the UK, as the Tories and Labour became pretty much the same party in the 90s, and people are now more likely to say that no political party represents their beliefs, voters are flitting between political allegiances depending on the scandal or the soundbite. Fundamentally though, Strummer is right with his line about Hitler. Hitler was a man responsible for attempted genocide and is rightly considered one of the most heinous individuals who ever came to power. But do we not have equally reprehensible leaders now? Have the UN not ignored other genocides that have been committed? And do we not ensure that the perpetrators live in protected opulence when they visit the UK? An entire book could be written on the significance of those last two lines, as they are philosophically, psychologically, and politically poignant.

The last line which Strummer repeats, is that he is "Only looking for fun". This suggests that he has given up on pursuing his dreams of change. That the groups described in the song, the people who populate them, and the attitudes they carry, have ground him down. These fakers and chancers, these politicians and the fickle who flit between political parties, this respect we give to monsters who treat people like vermin. So he's going to stop trying to fix the world and just try to enjoy his life, perhaps through artificial means, as he earlier calls himself the "All night drug prowling wolf". But is apathy, and giving up, not a natural and understandable reaction when you have the kind of night Strummer is describing? 'Fuck this' is a go-to response these days. Fuck this. He tried, but people just didn't get it. So, fuck this. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do people not use recreational drugs or alcohol to burn their problems? A temporary fix, sure, but an effective one nonetheless.

Strummer is describing a dark night of the soul, and we all have them, and most of us recover. We wake up arguably more determined to put things right in our lives, and sometimes in society, too. Certainly, The Clash found determination from this change in musical direction. The musical output that was to follow, from the focused brilliance of London Calling to the sprawling mess of Sandinsta!, likely found seed in this one track where two musical styles, seemingly at odds with each other, were pushed together to create something fresh and affecting. To see just how affecting it can be, cast your eyes over the footage below. Though not The Clash, this is Strummer singing his song with the Mescaleros in London. Watch Strummer's face as the crowd sing the first line, you'll see a flicker of a smile before he gets back to back to being angry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBbxRtnHp-A

Psychology As A Badge

So that's that for my degree. All done. Dusted. A 2:1. Upper, of course. Realistically, I think I could have attained a First if I'd forgone every kind of human communication for two years, something I wasn't prepared to do. I'm not too disappointed anyway, 10 years ago I never even thought I'd ever be in possession of a degree, much less a 2:1 one.

My love affair with psychology has not ended, however. I plan to return in October to take a Masters degree in applied neuropsychology, a topic I received a First in for my undergraduate degree so I should be alright with it.

The everyman's idea of what psychology is or what it does is perhaps slightly distorted. It's a massive subject, covering many, many things. Some quackery, some scientific. Either way, unless you wade through the murk of a single honours undergraduate degree, its hard to explain just how murky it is.

Someone I know took a combined degree. English and psychology. Now, here's where I become unpopular. If you take a combined degree, I don't believe there's any chance you know more about either of those subjects than someone who took a single honours in either. This someone took English and ONE psychology module. Just the one. An easy one; counselling psychology. Their dissertation was taken in English, their exams weren't exams they were coursework....all except for counselling psychology.

All of this is fine.....except. When bragging on Facebook that they received a First in their degree, they stated that it was 'Psychology with English'. Errmmm, no. Its the other way around isn't it? Your degree is weighted in favour of English, not the other way around.

Why the need for this subterfuge? I believe it is due to the nature of psychology and how the layman might believe it is a more intellectual subject or....and this is common....that being knowledgeable about psychology means you are in some way privy to certain information regarding behaviour or subconscious thought in a Derren Brown style. I assure you, the second part is not true.

Psychology students are met with 'I bet you're analysing me right now' type discussions with strangers and its fun to play on them, but playing is all you're doing. You have no idea what's going through someone's mind, just as you have no idea if my idea of red is your idea of red. Your red may be my green, and vice versa, which - if we could see what each other was thinking - could get interesting at traffic lights. Reality is entirely subjective, and perched on a knife edge.

The desire to wear a subject as a badge of intelligence is an odd thing to do. I don't consider my degree to be worth more than someone who took a drama degree or a mathematics degree. I did my fair share of statistical analysis in my degree, and I certainly had a fair amount of drama in it too.

Just as we are all philosophers at one point or another, so too are we all psychologists. You read people without knowing it, you analyse them in conversations with your friends too.

Getting through a degree, either combined or single honours, is an incredibly difficult thing to do. As such, I believe any new graduate has the right to brag for a while, to be proud, and to shout it from the rooftops regardless of grade. However, enlisting the help of a subject to come across a certain way is slightly pathetic. You should be proud of the subject you favoured. I would struggle to do an English degree, just as I struggled through a psychology one. Taking a counselling module however, does not make you a psychologist. It makes you someone who's read a little about counselling. Taking a degree in psychology does not make you a psychologist, and god knows there's plenty of my colleagues who will gladly take a job or career in any other discipline. It does however, give you a very small insight into a huge and largely fascinating subject. An insight that, though small, is a damn sight bigger than a single module.

The Everso Slightly Inconsistent Left

Following on from my previous thoughts on Woolwich, I have become concerned to the point of being irate at the attitude of many left-wingers.

Numerous times this week on social networking sites, I have been informed that I must object to hate marches by the BNP or the EDL. Frankly, I'll decide what I object to, but moreover; this is a country of free speech. Many people lost their lives to keep it that way. As such, attempting to silence those whose opinions differ to your own is really rather ridiculous. If you don't agree with it, I'm afraid it's tough.

However, alongside the Facebook and Twitter campaigns, a group of anti-fascists decided to try and spoil the days of the EDL and the BNP by counter-marching against them and blocking their proposed path.

My question....and its rather uncomfortable for these left-wing nutters.....is, where are they when Muslim extremists are walking the streets of Luton chanting "UK got to hell" and "British police go to hell"?



This is fascism too. And yet, this is not opposed with anywhere near the kind of vehemence reserved for white people marching against this kind of lunacy.

If you're going to be left wing, then you need to be consistent. It is not only white, British skin heads who can be right-wing and fascist. It is anybody, and in the case of that video, the Muslim extremists are of as much concern as the idiots in the BNP or EDL.

Another thing I tire of, is those leaping to the defence of the Woolwich murderers, stating they are "angry", or they felt "oppressed", or that society is ignoring them. So, left-wingers are prepared to look beyond their actions to the cause of them. That's good, there are bound to be some determining factors to their behaviour. What's bad is, why is the same scrutiny not applied to those marching for the EDL?

Dismissed as lager-swilling, coke-snorting thugs, why is their behaviour not held up to the microscope either? Do the left not consider that they feel angry, that they feel oppressed, and that society and government are ignoring their wishes?

Of course they do. Where then, is their break? One side is given the benefit of the doubt and dare I say it....sympathy......and the other is dismissed and branded.

It doesn't work. It seems the majority of the left are simply out to wring their hands and moralise. We must let ethnic minorities march for their beliefs, but the whites are thugs that need to be dealt with. Attempting to steer anyone's thoughts in a certain direction is by definition the opposite of freedom of thought and therefore freedom of speech. If they don't want the EDL to march by all means picket, but where are they when the Muslims are marching for an Islamic Britain?

How Woolwich Affected Me

Its hard not to have been affected by the happenings in Woolwich recently, and its hit me in a way I never expected. The nature of the attack; its violence (meat cleavers? really?), its randomness, the apparent lack of concern or emotion in the face of the perpetrators, and personally speaking....witnessing the insanity that then turned up all over social networking feeds.

I know some of my friends are racist. You can spot them too, they commonly start sentences with "I'm not racist, but....." and then proceed to say something so strikingly racist you wonder how that caveat ever managed to bump its way up to the start of the sentence. Simply saying you're not something is no good if you then prove that you are that something in the same breath.

But that's their position. I cannot tell them how to think or feel, and I wouldn't expect them to change their beliefs because of something I say. Racism is not something you're born with, you learn it. Its environmental. Happily, this means you can unlearn it too; you just have to want to.

After the Woolwich murders, many have decided their racism is well justified. My issue has always been with the religious aspect. I won't judge someone on their race, but I'm afraid I now judge everyone on their religious beliefs. I'm hoping it will pass, but the incident last week has snapped something in me and I can no longer stomach the bullshit that comes with organised religion. Its difficult not to focus on Islam, but there are plenty other organised religions bringing pain, misery and suffering in the name of something supposedly good.

I read, often, that the attack was not religiously motivated. I also read that the men were mentally ill. That they were oppressed. That they were angry. That they were drug abusers even. I doubt you, the reader, would stay with me as I picked apart each one of those reasons....or excuses.....so I won't bother. The men were certainly confused; they referred to 'our' government and then 'your' government. 'Our' country and 'your' country. As yet, its not clear what they wanted, or what they wanted to prove. They have, and deserve, little sympathy and if I was the resident nurse attending to their gunshot wounds, it would be difficult not to bring a little NaCl to work with me.

The majority of Muslims are peace-loving. Brilliant. Keep it up then. Their problem is they need to rat out and deal with those that are not. If they know some clerics are extreme, preaching hate and fundamentalism, they need to clean their own house. Then strip them of whatever title or license they need to preach their shit and they get rid of them. The Quran appears to be so ambiguous that it can advocate any amount of death, violence and bloodshed, and yet when read by another proves itself to be a book of peace and goodwill.

This is a massive problem. There must be an ultimate truth there, otherwise the thing is worthless as a spiritual guide.

Of course, as an atheist I believe all 'good books' to be inherently worthless. I have lost all respect for religious rituals and posing. Its bullshit, its make believe. We need to grow up and move the fuck on. Muslims seem to be the touchiest when it comes to having fun poked at their beliefs, and they need to get a grip. If their faith is strong, then what does a little Danish cartoon matter? Does Allah not preach forgiveness? If not, why the fuck not? Surely that's a first in any divine being's handbook.

We now have the counter-attacks, we have coked up lager fuelled idiots marching the streets of Britain making with the Nazi salute. The biggest idiots are the media for reporting it. As long as they do, attack and counter-attack will continue.

Religion appeals to those who think themselves so important they can't just cease to be. There is no afterlife, pleasant or otherwise. You die. You just stop. Being scared of this is fine. Being scared of anything is fine, but know that fear of something doesn't make anything less so. If you want to live on, you do so through your kids, your acts and gestures, the things you leave behind be they experiences with others or music, books, paintings. You don't see Allah, you don't see God, you are aware of nothing.

My solution is a radical one and probably seen as ridiculous by many. Simply; ban all religion. This country becomes secular. Keep the buildings up - churches, mosques, as relics, as museums even, but you cannot practice in there. No praying, no worshipping. Nothing. If you want to believe in that shit, you go somewhere else and do it. You are then responsible for your actions, for your life, for the good and bad, for courage, for strength, for forgiveness. Attributing this stuff to a figment of your imagination is bad for your mental health, you need to give yourself some credit. I have lost my patience with religion, and the people who fanatically believe in it. Whether the attack was religiously motivated or not, I'm afraid that's what Woolwich did to me.

Coming Up For Air

The title of this post is the title of a book by George Orwell. I read it....strewth......nearly twenty years ago now. Its about a chap who goes back to the visit the place he spent his childhood in, hoping to re-experience some of those things that made it so special. He finds that time - unsurprisingly - has not waited for him, and that many of the things he looked forward to seeing again are now gone, just like many of the people.

Its a book about nostalgia really, and how you must realise that you can never go back. Those days are gone. I always remind someone I know who is very nostalgic that eventually, he'll be nostalgic for these days too, so enjoy all hell out of them while you can. I know I'll look back on this time very fondly indeed, as I have a lot to feel fortunate about.

However, there is a lot going on right now, and I need a break. Often, my breaks would come in the form of music festivals. Sadly, finances and line-ups that defy my age and musical tastes mean I rarely go anymore, and when I do go, they tire me to the point that I need another break after them.

I'd like to come up for air right now. I know you can never go back, but just some greenery, some sunshine, and less stress would be marvellous. So here is a poem by William Butler Yeats, which sums up my mood for today. I hope you all know your own way of coming up for air, and I hope you get enough of a lungful so that you can cope with the 21st century once again.

I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
 

Matrices and Simulations

I haven't written a philosophical paper for a couple of years now, and I'm not really sure this is one. Regardless, what I'm about to write will probably produce derision in many, because in order to wrap your head around it your identity and place in the world is fundamentally changed.

Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.

Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.

Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.

Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.

The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.

Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.

So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.

The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.

Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.

A Quickie

Haven't written for a while but this made me chuckle so much today I wish to preserve it in pixels for years to come.

In a seminar on Abnormal Psychology, we were treated to the 'teachers friend', the DVD. This one was by the national hero, all round splendid fellow and wordsmith Stephen Fry. Speaking of his problems with manic depression, the program followed him around as he took in old stomping grounds and met people similar to himself.

One of these people was Rick Stein, the TV chef. Now, Mr Stein suffers from bi-polar depression, and claims that it is hereditary. His father not only suffered from it, but threw himself off a cliff in front of his sister because of it. Suicide and manic depression are common, and dying from manic phases because the individual is so hyped up they forget to eat or drink have also been documented. The program took Rick, Stephen, and of course the viewer, back to the cliff where it happened, and it was clear that Rick Stein had both come to terms with the incident, and was still disturbed by it.

After the program finished, we were urged to comment on the things that surprised us about the program. I myself didn't realise manic episodes could get quite so manic, nor last quite so long. Others were surprised that kids as young as 4 can be diagnosed with it (Americans......sheesh).

However, one girl.....one girl.......she was surprised by something different.

When asking if there was anything else we wished to state as surprising, she put her hand up and said, "I didn't know Rick Stein's dad committed suicide."

The tutor looked at her, looked to the floor, then looked around the room and said "Anything else?". Leaving the completely ridiculous statement hanging in the air like a fetid Pinata which doesn't need to be struck with a stick, its spilled out its awfulness all over the room anyway.

I was initially embarrassed for her, then saw the hilarious side. Bless her all to hell and back. They did ask what we found surprising, but I think she took it a tad too literally.

Ahoy There

I am old enough to remember a time before the internet. Oh they were dark days I can tell you. If you wanted to know something you had to go to a library or your book collection and look it up. They had these things called Indexes in the back of the books that were like Google only not as varied in choice.

Now, the internet is here to stay. Its a good thing too. Sure it could be seen as making people lazy, with so much information just a click away, but surely that's just jealousy. If I'd have had the internet as a kid I think I'd be a bit more knowledgeable now, just through curiosity.

With the internet comes the sharing of information. Not just scientific, verified information; there's also the problem that anyone can put whatever they like on the net, and some moron can read it and take it as red. They think that as it floats in cyber space it must have some kind of truth to it. It really doesn't. Being on the internet is most definitely not a criterion for truth. I mean look at me here, I can put whatever I like on here and no-one's reading it anyway, but if they were I could write whatever I wanted and there's a danger someone would take it as the truth when I was only joking.

So we don't only share information, we share files. Files can be movies, documents, or music. Piracy is a huge problem right now, but only for the previously wealthy. Film studios and record labels are watching between their fingers as they see millions of pounds in revenue come crashing down around them. To be fair, they were warned about this, and they didn't act. Now they find themselves losing cash hand over fist while anyone with BitTorrent makes off like a bandit.

Dave Grohl, or as I call him, Uncle Dave, has stated that he thinks music piracy is fine. He's okay with it, thinks it should be encouraged. Ed Sheeran claimed yesterday that he's sold about 1.5 million albums, yet his album has been downloaded illegally a further 8 million times. He's fine with it too. He's flattered even.

Dave was in Nirvana, and he was in Queens of the Stone Age, and he IS the Foo Fighters. As such, Dave has sold millions of albums. I saw an interview with him once where he said there's basically nothing he can't afford. So he's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?

Ed Sheeran, Brit award winner, seller of a million and a half units, having number one albums and successful tours. He's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?

What these two nicompoops forget, is there's people like me out there. People who dip a toe in the stagnant water of the music industry and find it cold and uninviting. At my level, you get maybe 3 or 4 grand together to make a record. You need to sell a good 500 copies at full wack to start that thing called 'profit'. Sure we do it. Now. But how long will it last?

As I type I can direct you to at least 3 websites that have download links for albums I have helped to write, record, and release. I don't have the luxury of taking days to write a song, I have to fit it in as and when. Recording is a process of 'we can't do that because we don't have enough time', rather than indulging ourselves in sonic experimentation. Art work is usually done either by myself and other members of the band or by 'mates' at 'mates rates'.

In summary then; its a fucking ball ache. But, hopefully, the end result is worth it. Small record labels need revenue. They need money to give to other bands to make more records. They're not doing it believing they're going to sign the next Coldplay or Metallica. They're doing it because they have a love for music and they wish to perpetuate the genre of music they're working in.

If all music were just put on the net as per Grohl and Sheeran, the big bands and artists would remain. The smaller, independent artists would disappear. The only way they could make money is touring, but labels provide 'tour support' for that, and boy do you need it. That or sponsorship. Of course, there are many out there who claim they download illegally and then 'get into' that band or singer, and as such purchase all subsequent releases.

That's fine, but that's what the single was made for. Its promotion. Its a case of 'Here's what I sound like, if you like it, buy the album'. Its a taster, a teaser. You don't need the whole album for that.

The current trend of piracy will, at least in the near future, never stop. The Pirate Bay was dismantled, but Isohunt remains. Cut a head off and another two will grow in its place. Quite what impact this will have on the struggling artist will remain to be seen, but semi-professional bands don't need the kind of shit Sheeran and Grohl are talking. Piracy is not okay, because it affects a wide range of people. Sure Grohl doesn't need the cash, but I fucking do. As such, he should consider his musical brethren before talking rubbish.

If you love your music, you pay for it. You have to pay for everything else. If you don't, the only thing left might well be your packaged X-Factor, manufactured bullshit, as that's all the record labels will be prepared to put their money behind.

Bite The Hand That Feeds

Regrettably, the horrors of 9/11 have failed to make any real impact on the world where it really matters. We now have much stricter security at airports and major events, and we are currently fighting two vicious and - rather pointless - wars in the name of the attacks.

Where it should have made a change, but didn't, was in the realm of the religious. The thinking behind 9/11 has been attributed to religious beliefs, and how many Muslims want Islam to rule the world. 9/11 could have been seen as some kind of statement regarding that. However, the attacks on the Twin Towers are actually more layered. Bin Laden had a history with America, one that saw him once working for the CIA. Whatever happened between them, it was enough to piss Bin Laden off to the point where he twice attacked the World Trade Centre, and the second time he really did a number on it.

I can't imagine...I don't want to imagine...what it would have been like that day. I've been to Ground Zero. It was a desperately sad place that also had a great deal of tension remaining in the air. For those with family inside the towers, watching them collapse live on TV would have sucked the soul from them. For those with family on the planes, they might have found some relief, however small, from death being instantaneous.

What of the hijackers? As those in the second plane (and it was the second plane that made America realise they were under attack) swooped through the clear blue skies and headed towards their target, the pilots must have seen that their comrades in arms had done their bit. They had gone through with the plan. Did they feel elation? Fear? Pressure? That they'd made a mistake? That it wasn't worth it? Was there arguments in the cockpit or were they screaming religious verse and righteousness in the name of Allah? High-fiving each other at sight of the billowing smoke?

11 years on, almost to the day, and again Americans are murdered by Muslims. Touchy muslims as it happens. Thems what can't take a joke. A film that depicts the prophet Mohamed in a less-than-flattering light upset some people to the point where they saw fit to fire rockets at an embassy. A film then. A work of fiction. Mohamed then. A work of fiction. People dying for fiction? In 2012?

As I watch the coverage on the news, there is footage of people in Egypt burning the American flag. America gives Egypt 2 billion dollars a year in aid. 1.3 of which is military aid. They've given this money every year since 1979. That's a lot of dough right there.

70% of Egyptians cannot read or write. If they could, perhaps they might be aware of these facts. It seems to me that there is a trigger; a person or persons setting off this rage. People think differently in gangs. They seem to lose their common sense and a huge chunk of their morality. It comes with anonymity. Each considers the other as, or more, to blame. Recklessness and daring follow, and before you know it, there's a great deal going bad. If the learned know this, they can know how to manipulate the people they wish to manipulate into doing what they desire.

Aid to Egypt and Libya should now be stopped. If I was giving you money, generously out of my pocket, money that I really needed myself to fix something that was broken (my country), and you then attacked me, I'd tell you to do one where that money was concerned. Quite why I would continue to give money to people that loathe me to the point where they are burning my national flag is beyond me.

Whilst some parts of this planet excel, create, work, innovate, challenge, think and ponder; others....don't. They are trapped believing in fairies, magic, miracles, and an afterlife. It colours their thinking, their mood, their day, their actions, their everything. The human race, if it wishes to progress, needs to cut the shit. We need to get everyone on board. There needs to be an enlightenment. We are seemingly still in the dark ages.

I don't give a fuck about Mohamed. I don't believe in him, I don't believe he can't be offended either. Offence is not given, its taken. What offends me may not offend you, but that's fine. Live and let get-on-with. If I am offended by something, I can turn the other way, I can not pay any attention to it. Salman Rushdie was put into hiding, Kurt Westergaard was attacked with an axe, Jyllands Posten was burnt to death for publishing the cartoons Westergaard drew. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam. And now this. Now Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador in Libya.

All for religion. All for a fictitious character. Would you murder someone in the name of Snow White? Its a daft idea. This old thinking needs to die, not innocent people. If you were to walk down a street with a placard claiming that 'Jesus Was A Homo', you might get some derogatory looks, maybe some harsh words, but you'd live to walk another day. If you replaced Jesus with Mohamed, you would be in serious trouble. Serious trouble.

I feel edgy for claiming I don't give a fuck about this Mohamed character. Why should I feel that way? How much longer can this go on for? Imagine the rioting was about a book called.....oh I don't know...50 Shades Of Grey. The book would be banned, it would be out of print, it would be considered a danger. Because the Koran is religious, it cannot be banned. But it should be. So much violence in its name, so much grief and anger.

I feel like a teacher saying to the pupils 'If you can't play with it properly you can't have it'. But this is how it is with that damn book. We need to move on from religion, from idiocy, and from primitive violence and anger in the name of imaginary friends.

Save The World, Get The Message

As a confused teenager, many lyrics pertaining to the changing of the world are soaked up with relish. You know the world is fucked, you know it needs to change, and you know the lyrics of whichever politically-charged band you're listening to have the answers.

Then, you grow up a bit. You realise that, in fact, if you want to change the world, you need to first of all start with yourself (cheers, Ghandi), then you need to play them at your own game. If the world of politics is corrupt in your eyes, then you need to infiltrate their little party and make the change from within. To me, shouting lyrics about change at a bunch of punks who already want change is getting you nowhere. Its what the phrase 'Preaching to the converted' was made for.

Recently, a band called The King Blues decided they would be political. Sure there were love songs in there, but they genuinely didn't like the way things were and decided to sing about it. They had a decent enough back story; that of squats, petty crime, drinking paint stripper, listening to Crass etc. So far, so everyday. Then they decide to busk with a few ukuleles, play some parties and before you know it, they're on Household Name Records and playing the Lock Up stage at Reading. So far, so pretty damn lucky.

With their second album, Save The World, Get The Girl, the band had a 'hit' with the title track. From here, it all went a little down hill.

Many of the original members of the band found themselves sacked after the tour, and one in particular claimed it was over money. It seemed that some were getting more than others, and everyone was desperate to have their songs on the album as it generated song-writing royalties, something which - for a musician - is tantamount to their retirement fund.

Despite only two original members remaining, the band soldiered on for another album and then quit before the release of their fourth and final effort. There was a lot of noise about who to blame, how the band stuck to their beliefs and ideals etc, and how much the fans meant. The usual shizzle.

However, for a band that was so hot on taking down corruption, of fighting the powers that be, and of being the best person you can be, there was a number of dubious moves on their part. Signing with Island Records made them label mates with U2, albeit very briefly. We could label this 'Doing a RATM' then, as those other government botherers, Rage Against The Machine, claimed they wanted to bring down that pesky 'system' whilst signing for Epic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. which made them label mates with Michael Jackson.

Although Island Records is a Jamaican record label and famously had Bob Marley on their books, it nevertheless is part of a huge corporation, and therefore the polar opposite of everything The King Blues advocated. Nevertheless, they may well play the 'We're getting our message to a wider audience' card. Thank you RATM for that little doozy.

It seems though that regardless of their choice of label, The King Blues were ultimately undone by greed. At least, according to their old guitar player, Fruitbag. In a statement issued after his sacking from the band, he claimed - surprise surprise - that everything changed after they signed to Universal, the company that owns Island Records. The greed and the egos showed their heads, and the band began to crack.

Interesting then, that the very people that hated that kind of stuff and raged against it were in fact as susceptible to it as the very people they were complaining about in their lyrics. That one event, the signing to a big-money label and the potential royalties that came with it, was enough to change everything. Itch's response to the accusations thrown by Fruitbag never once addressed the greed issue, only the personal issues stated by Fruitbag. Perhaps it was because there was no defence for it?

Although The King Blues are now no more, to me they are indicative of the fact that everyone has their price, everyone is prepared to lose or forget that which they were so sure of initially. Moaning on about the government and how they treat people terribly is one thing, but to then do the same to the majority of your bandmates who are supposedly in the struggle with you together is hypocrisy itself.

The King Blues did walk it like they talked it, lets not forget that. They did do things for the causes they believed in, they did try and raise awareness over certain issues, these things are commendable. Sadly though they were changed by pound signs, just like anyone else.

The Clash, Chumbawamba, The Sex Pistols, Levellers. Many bands have started out with rage, with desire to make changes, only to end up getting on their knees in front of the corporate cock. There is nothing wrong with this, if you're honest about it. You want to make a bit of money? Why not? Why wouldn't you? There's no shame in it, but there is shame in being dishonest about it.

Fame? Or Fortune?

Since 2009, I have lived as a semi-professional musician. Quite how my life would have turned out if I did not have that - albeit relatively small - income would be anyone's guess. Local gigs have helped fuel my car and put groceries in the cupboard, and bigger, European or worldwide gigs have helped buy the car, tax it, pay rent, pay child maintenance, buy clothes, and allow me to....yes, go to the pub.

A long time ago I decided it would be much more interesting to be rich rather than famous. It seems this thinking is in stark contrast to many of the X-Factor / Big Brother addicted kidz growing up now. Fame seems to be a pain, whereas having some nice folding money on your hip brings with it a feeling of security and mild happiness.

With this in mind, I never really like taking compliments from people concerning the bands, and certainly don't see why people would ask me to sign their CD's at Frenzy gigs. Its a scribble and, if anything, devalues the CD rather than increases its monetary worth. Regardless, if I declined a signature, I would definitely be considered a rock star.

So I am aware that in the future I will look back at this time in my existence fondly, and accept that I was very fortunate to have lived this way for as long as I have. Some weeks are a famine, others a feast. Right now, its famine time, but that will swing back the other way soon enough.

A friend of mine though, has recently been experiencing a degree of success with his band. They have acquired a manager, a bloody good thing to have, and luckily for them this chap knows his onions. He has gotten them all manner of good things, and there's plenty more to come. They have magazine coverage, they are doing a Radio One session, they are playing the festivals with their more influential, more successful peers. So far, so rock star.

However....they're all skint. They're all on the dole, most of them because they believe they're already rock stars and shouldn't have to work. It seems rock stars these days need their mum and dad to wash, iron, cook and clean for them though. Claiming benefits is one thing, but it seems that despite their festival slots and excellent supporting opportunities, the money isn't forthcoming. Would it be alarmist to say its a form of exploitation? As a jaded musician I'd say no. If someone does a job for you, you pay them for their services. Unfortunately, contracts are rarely exchanged in the music industry, unless they heavily benefit one party and financially penalise the other.

I would like some of their opportunities, really I would. But whilst opportunity brings with it experience, it seldom pays the bills. I appreciate this is where age may creep into the proceedings, as I now believe that whilst it is important to see and do as much as you can with this very short life, I also think that for the young, the experience is a large part of it, and not the financial reward. However, this comes from a lack of responsibility. These guys don't have to make rent, pay for the electric, and pay the council tax.

I hope they eventually invest enough free gigs in the band so that later on, they won't have to worry about where the money is coming from. Myself; I would much rather be in a small band that gets paid well regularly, than have the luxury of bragging to my friends about the green room at Radio One. I too get a lot of great experiences, but I come back in the black. And long may that continue...

The Coil

No, not a contraceptive. Rather, a contraption. The Tesla Coil, to be precise.

For those that don't know, the Tesla Coil is a way of making more power out of a current. Nikola Tesla was a genius. For me, one of the greatest to have ever lived. Certainly better than that Edison chancer, who actually had Tesla working for him, promised him a bonus of 30,000 dollars if Tesla came up with a certain number of patents (this was back when 30,000 would have set you up for hundreds of years), which Tesla did, only to then say "I was only joking, chump".

So Tesla left, but took his genius with him. Edison and Tesla engaged in a kind of inventing war for a while, and Tesla often won. An example of which was AC. Alternating Current. Edison invented and championed Direct Current, but DC meant sending electrons out and then bringing them back. It was a very bad way of sending electric to people. In New York at the time, the multitude of wires needed to carry electricity sometimes blacked out the sky. It must have been something.

DC meant having to erect power stations every couple of miles, just to keep the electron flow going. So Tesla invented AC. Alternating current. It meant the power cables were much thinner, and could just keep on going with no need for a boost every few miles. Needless to say, Edison was incredulous, and slagged AC off at every opportunity.

But Tesla wanted to go further than AC. Further than fewer, thinner wires. He wanted no wires at all. In fact, he wanted free power. To all. And, with the Tesla Coil, he deemed it possible. If you plug a Tesla Coil in to an American socket, you're giving it 120 Volts. But the coil spews electricity from the top of the coil at 500,000 volts. How? Well, if you imagine the electricity flowing like water, the voltage is likened to water pressure. If you attach a nozzle to the end of a hose, the water pressure is increased, while the flow of water is decreased. Try putting your thumb over the end of a hose and you'll see. So the coil steps up the voltage and reduces the current. Its a transformer.

If you hold a light bulb in a room with a Tesla Coil in it, the light bulb will illuminate. No wires. No sockets. Just electrical energy in the air. Tesla wanted to build giant Tesla Coils and provide the earth with electrical energy, using the earth itself as a conductor.

This would mean impoverished countries that still live off the land would all of a sudden have access to power. And not just any power, clean power. The global warming merchants needn't worry about coal fuel stations, we'd only be powering a few energy stations. Tesla built a huge coil, Wardenclyffe, and managed to illuminate light bulbs over a mile away. Sadly, and is so oft the case, the money man pulled out of investing in Tesla's invention, when someone beat him broadcasting radio waves over the Atlantic. Later, the accolade was reversed and granted to Tesla, after it materialised that the chap who beat him to it used at least 5 or 6 of Tesla's patents.

Regardless, I see Tesla's ideas for free world power as...obviously a threat to establishment....but more than that, even back then he was thinking big. Really big. If we are one world and we all look out for each other, I  don't think the regular 5 pound a month pledge to Oxfam can really cut it. Oh it helps, sure, but we, as a species, need to think bigger. Tesla style bigger.

He also invented the induction motor, which is the standard electric motor used everywhere these days. A larger type is used in a car, also called a Tesla, which is an electric car that can do over 200 miles on a single charge. Now, Steve, you might say. What was that? Why, if we can build electric cars that can do 0 - 60 in under 4 seconds and travel over 200 miles on a single charge, are the governments of the world not making this standard issue? Why are we still bothering with the internal combustion engine?

Short answer: fuck knows. The technology is there. It exists. It can be used and utilised. But everyone seems to be looking the other way, to the point where shares in the Tesla motor company dropped last year and continue to decline.

If the men in power cared about the environment like your green taxes claim they do, then we would all be driving these cars. By law. But that would punch a huge hole in their revenue, and we can't have that. The Saudis have so much invested in the American economy that if the Saudis were ruined because we didn't need their oil any more, the American economy would collapse.

Free power, clean transport. Isn't this what we should be pursuing?

Nikola Tesla invented many other things; remote control, energy saving light bulbs (seriously), X-rays (again, seriously but he was never recognised for it), proposed the idea of bouncing radio waves off objects to determine position and speed 17 years before the invention of radar, and the laser.

He also built something called The Earthquake Machine. Going on the principle that every object, once struck, has a resonant frequency, he concluded that if you match that frequency and increase it, any material can be shaken to pieces. Dangerous, but true nevertheless. You could bring down a building with a very small device.

Tesla then. Had his fair share of good ideas and dangerous ones. Died alone in a hotel room in New York, undiscovered for two days. The FBI seized his files, and the world largely forgot about him. These days, we need his genius more than ever before. Sadly, the Tesla Coil is not taken seriously. Think of all the money the power suppliers would lose. The electric car is not being taken seriously. Think of all the money the oil companies would lose. Of course, if the world built giant Tesla Coils, the electric cars would pick up the power as they drove. They wouldn't need a charge. You could just keep on driving as long as your tyres went round and the motor was okay. Wouldn't that be something?

Pie Anna & The Snob

Music is one of the few global processes we know of in the brain. Hooray for music then. Now, music has done much to me and for me. My ears are damaged, though only time will tell to what degree and how it'll all end up and whether I consider it a fair trade-off. Music has also shaped me though, and made me much of the person I am today as well as allowing me the opportunity to travel to many places I most certainly would not have done and play to people that would otherwise have ignored me.

Apparently, when you reach a certain age you begin to lose somewhere in the region of 50,000 neurons a day. It means that starting something, learning something new, is more difficult than if you tried it when you were a kid and your brain was a sponge soaking it all up. I was daft enough to start learning the piano a year ago. 35, and taking on something as monstrous as the piano. A year later, I am pleased with my progress, though I never imagined for one minute it would be as difficult as it is, with or without losing my brain cells.

I think that everyone should be made to take piano lessons. Here's why; it teaches you to take things one step at a time, it teaches you co-ordination, and it teaches you expression. Three bloody good reasons. Not least the first one. In piano, learning a piece, you do it bar-by-bar. You learn a bar, you move on. Then you piece them together. It gets programmed into your fingers, your motor cortex, and you know it. And its a good lesson to take with you. Do things one step at a time and its easier. Go rushing in and you'll fuck up.

Now, the piano is something I've kept relatively secret. I play for me, to me, its me me me. I get a huge amount of pleasure from it, especially when it just works or you pull off something fiendishly difficult that has been plaguing you for months. Why then, would I not want to shout about this, record me playing pieces and stick them on Youtube? Because I play classically. I play Bach, Chopin, Debussy and Schumann. 

Sadly for these splendid fellows, many people view classical music as the domain of the upper class, of the snobs and the stuck-ups. The upper classes have done nothing to dispel the myth that classical music is for the rich or the especially intelligent. The morons. Beauty is for anyone fortunate enough to turn their senses to it. Many are afraid of introspection for fear of what lies within, and I think certain pieces of classical music are so affecting, looking in is the only thing you can do. If you don't like what you see there, see a therapist, but don't blame the music.

Why you would not want to listen to music of such beauty and power with all the sonic garbage that clogs up the charts is quite beyond me. Sure, you can't put up with it all the time, you need a beat, you need some noise, some anger and some fun. But when you want to be moved, and I mean really, really moved, where every fucking emotion you can imagine is moulded over a couple of staves and spread out over 6 or 8 minutes, I don't see how you can go anywhere but to a piano. 

Chopin's Raindrop Prelude. So called because the one note (A flat) that plays throughout it is supposed to symbolise the pitter and the patter of raindrops. Plus the middle section could almost be a storm, a storm that later recedes and is replaced again by a light rain.
Aww. Nice. But come on. Such an adolescent interpretation. For me, the Raindrop Prelude demands to tell you that it soundtracks your life. It begins very delicately, then the initial theme is expanded upon, then it gets darker. And as we grow, we learn the important things; that people don't always get what they deserve, that we are often exploited, that we lose things and people we love, and we get very, very pissed off about it. This, to me, is the middle part of the Raindrop. The anger you contain throughout a lot of your days. Then, at the end with the refrain, so it goes with us. We return to a state similar to the one when we got here. We realise the little things don't matter a fuck, we realise life is a thing of beauty, even with the tragedies, and as the song closes, we too find peace. The one note that plays throughout, to me is a heartbeat. Not rain. Rain is a daft idea.

Would I be afraid of saying the above to some bow-tie wearing knob shank of a classical music critic? Damn right. But why would my interpretation of that piece be wrong? It is what it is. He doesn't agree so what. I'll take it to the grave, to my last chord, because its what the piece says to me. Therefore, it can never be wrong. 

Imposing limitations on your musical tastes is a daft idea. I remember when I was at school you could only like Def Leppard. Anyone else and you were out cast. Whilst it now seems okay for anyone to like anything, still classical music is the elephant in the room. I wish more would embrace it. I know it seems dense, I know it seems overwhelming, but by jingo its worth it. 

The people who wrote this stuff weren't snobs either. Many of them lived awful lives, lives of poverty, lives of heart-break, lives of ill health. Chopin died at the age of 39 of Cystic Fibrosis, heart-broken that his great love was not there as she promised she would be. Beethoven died at 56 from unknown causes, he was a raging alcoholic, had chronic diarrhoea, and was profoundly deaf in his later years, the worst thing you could wish upon a composer of music. He was also twice nearly beaten to death by his alcoholic father when he was a child. Bach had 10 children die in infancy, as well as experiencing the death of his mother and father before he was 10, and the death of the love of his life. Who else can be more qualified at expressing tragedy. Yet this music is for everyone, they created this stuff that was so beautiful, and the upper classes got hold of it and made it feel exclusive to them. Fuck that, take it back off them. Its out there to enjoy, to plough through, to soundtrack your life. If needs be, start with one of those arbitrary 'Best Piano Album In The Universe (though we have no proof of that) Volume 3 (How can they do Volumes of something that they proclaim to be the best in the universe?). Whatever you start with, just try it. Dip your toe in the water, see how it feels, or else you too will be a snob, only an inverted one.

Start Spreading The News...

Tomorrow morning, at roughly 11 in the a.m., I leave for London to catch a plane. A plane that will eventually take me to JFK airport in New York.

When I became aware of how much more of the world there was to see, I had 3 places on my list of places I had to visit before I ceased to function. Number one was Hollywood, number two was New York, and number three was Egypt. Number one is now crossed off my list. Its gone, many times over. Hollywood was not what I thought, but I still loved it, and thinking about it now, I kinda miss it. Frenzy have spent weeks there, using it as a base from which to tour, prepare to tour, and hold fruitless meetings with people.

So New York was elevated to the number one position. Boom. With a bullet. Many times in the past we have been making plans to go to New York to play, but they sadly came to nothing. At least this time, my ass has a space booked and paid for on that plane. I'm going. Even if I get turned around by customs. Even if the gig doesn't happen. Even if it happens but I don't get paid.

No matter.

When I was a kid, I heard a piece of music on an advert for a chocolate bar. It turned out to be Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue. There's only a small piece of it that caught my attention, but for me it soundtracked a city. Not the commercial parts of a city, but the back alleys, the blinking neon signs, the dumpsters, the shadowy figures in hats and trenchcoats. All the stuff from detective novels and film noir. All the fantasy stuff that didn't exist now, if it ever did back in the 30's.

As I grew I became more entranced with big cities, being a boy who grew up in the country. Both alluring and frightening, New York seemed like the Big Daddy of cities. It made sense to go to the biggest and baddest, to get the best experience.

Plenty of films depict the same city in many different ways. Taxi Driver, my most favourite film, describes New York almost as a living organism, but one that is infected, decaying, and rotten. It almost holds the city itself responsible for the actions of its inhabitants, as if it somehow turns people bad. When I was 14 or 15 and deeply into comic books, the streets of Gotham City just felt like they were really New York to me. Like Bob Kane just couldn't really call it New York because he didn't want people to grief him over it. Most obviously, Manhattan, the movie that itself linked up Gershwin's music to the cityscape in a way I'd only previously saw in my head. Manhattan romanticises the city, just as I was doing, and the black and white used in the film only adds to its dreamlike qualities.

We only have a few days in NYC. The Empire State is high on the 'must do' list. However, I shall be bitterly disappointed if I don't also see the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge. The gig itself feels like a minor inconvenience, and I fully expect to have little sleep during my stay. I don't see the point with so many other things I could be doing.

Its time to begin packing, to tick off another one of my ambitions. After this, Egypt is the last one left in my top three. Can't see us getting a gig over there somehow.

Round 2

The aggressive stand-point taken by such intellects as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens is sometimes a little much for me, and I regard those that wear atheism as a badge of intelligence as suspect and believe that it conversely signals their lack of intelligence or ability to think independently.

Many of the arguments atheists throw at religion can themselves be thrown at atheism too. How do you know....that would be my basic one. There is no evidence for God yet, but that's not to say we won't find any. There's no evidence for the Higgs-Boson particle either, but we're spending billions of pounds searching for it. So I'll sit on the fence if that's okay, in this weird limbo that means I get labelled an agnostic.

Recently a christian friend of mine posted on Facebook that there is no evidence for evolution. I saw that he had support from some of his christian friends, and objection from a mutual friend who tried to point out that there is evidence for evolution and its all around us.

Of course, me being me, I had to stick my oar in. Now, the discussion has remained just that, there is no insults being thrown around, no name-calling, just a back and forth about...well, its gone from evolution to all things religious. Its interesting for me, though I confess that I begin to tire of it.

All of a sudden Dawkins and Hitchens have my sympathy. There is just no talking to these people, and I've begun to feel like I'm now the victim of condescension. They talk as if "You poor soul, I only hope the spirit of our Lord visits you soon". As if I'm a sinner in need of redemption. Logic and reason doesn't feature heavily in religious debates, from the religious side at least.

I even posted a web site link. A web site link to the vatican web site to be precise and on that site, you can see a piece of text that acknowledges the universe probably started with a Big Bang and that mankind came from a single organism. I'm not sure how they can say that since it so obviously contradicts their sacred texts, but its there all the same.

I'm shocked to learn in this discussion, that my friend considers his moral compass to come from God. Being a psychologist (for the next year and a half at least), I can point in him the direction of his morals. They come from the orbitofrontal cortex and the amygdala. One, the OFC, is similar to Freud's tri-partite theory of personality in that it considers the options before you and then plans a course of action which you inevitably follow. One, the amygdala, is responsible for emotional memory....so guilt or shame would feature heavily, especially in christians.

I appreciate this view is reductionist, but it doesn't make it any less so. Furthermore, spiritual experiences have now been traced to temporal lobe epilepsy. It must be remembered that 2,000 years ago, most mental illnesses would be attributed to either God or the Devil.

Regressions aside, I pointed him in the direction of the wreckage in New Orleans that came from Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath, many people went pillaging, and in some horrific cases, women trapped in their homes were raped and abused. People with a previously balanced moral compass can do morally reprehensible things depending on their situation. If someone threatens my son's life, I will do pretty much anything to end that threat, using any means at my disposal. Morals can go hang, and I don't mind hanging for the crime as long as he's protected. Research indicates all societies are three meals away from anarchy. Deprive us of three meals in a row, and you've got a shifting of the moral compass. To say its guided by God is to be too subjective.

To counter this, I was told that there are tribes in 'the Amazon' - which narrows it down - that have similar morals to us. So, how could they do that? It must be God that put these morals there. Interesting argument. Were it not for the Yanomami tribe who torture, beat, rape, and brand their women in order to assert their male dominance. Where's God's moral compass there?

I don't wish to destroy anyone's beliefs in the manner that Dawkins or Hitchens might. However, I get a sense of the gloves coming off in this discussion. I hate that I have to provide evidence for everything I say, and yet they can get away with just having faith. Its frustrating.

My friend believes the world is only 6,000 years old. Despite the fossils. Despite carbon dating. He cannot explain dinosaurs either. Nor the platypus. Nor the ice age. Nor extinction. Nor the fact that 99% of species are now extinct. Nor the fact that if Adam did indeed name them all, he would have needed one hell of a memory considering there's over 2 million species of insect alone.

The big guns will be the striking similarity between the Egyptian God Horus, and our own Jesus of Nazareth. Let's cherry pick some good ones, but rest assured there are many more...

- Both were conceived of a virgin.

- Both births were announced by an angel.

- Jesus' mother was Mary, Horus' mother was Meri.

- Jesus' father was Joseph, Horus' father was Seph.

- Both fathers were of royal descent.

- The birth of both was heralded by a star.

- Both were visited by shepherds at birth.

- Both have no recorded history between the ages of 12 and 30.

- Both baptized in a river at age 30.

- In both cases, the baptizer was later beheaded.

- Both had 12 disciples.

- Both walked on water, healed the sick, the blind, and cast out demons.

- Both delivered a sermon on the mount.

- Both were crucified (Both next to two thieves)

- Both were sent to hell for three days and then resurrected.

- Both said to return for 1,000 year reign.

- Jesus was known as Christ, Horus as KRST. Both these things mean 'the resurrected one'.

Looks a bit odd doesn't it?

I genuinely believe the religious among us are simply being vocal about their search for meaning. As such, they attribute meaning to random events and either thank God for the good ones, or accept he works in mysterious ways for the bad ones. God can't lose in their eyes.

I don't need a God to tell me the best thing to do. As such, if it fucks up I can blame no-one but myself either. I don't need to believe there's ever-lasting reward awaiting me in heaven. There's enough reward down here already. There's enough hell too but let's try and be optimistic.

I will continue the debate with my friend and the members of his church. As long as they keep replying, I have faith that logic, reason, and scientific advancement are on my side and will give me the ammo I need for the argument. Attributing the good in your life to a supernatural being is to deny yourself some serious credit, some serious understanding, and to have a pretty dim view of your life and your abilities.

For out of fear and need each religion is born, creeping into existence on the byways of reason. - Neitzsche.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

A short time ago I decided to see what this Twitter malarkey was all about. So I joined and found that few of my friends were on it really. I did the thing you usually do when you join Twitter, and that's follow @stephenfry. He's a national treasure. Its the law. It became a kind of personal Heat magazine for me, as I found people like Derren Brown, Gervias, Martin, Ginger Wildheart and Teller. The stuff they update is mildly interesting / amusing at best and I soon lost interest in it. I did check back every now and then though, and I saw a post by a person I both respect and admire, the coolest ginger on the planet; Tim Minchin.

Not only is he a highly skilled pianist, he is also an advocate of rational, logic reasoning and scientific thinking. Full marks, I tip my hat. However, he happened to post a link to an article in the LA times which stated that climate change skepticism was being taught now in schools alongside the AGW theory. He was saying how this is wrong, and that its skepticism based upon politically motivated reasoning.

He couldn't be more mis-informed. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who started this scam, was politically motivated in his actions. So I 'tweeted' back at Tim, that skepticism is good. I mentioned three scientists that prove this point; Newton, Einstein and Bohr. Each of those physicists interpreted the world in a new way. We had Newton's law of gravity, then Einstein's special theory of relativity, then Bohr gave us the quantum. Each one changed the way we saw the world, each one broke new ground and aided understanding. Its what science does, we do the best we can with the information we have. As time changes, we change that understanding. Skepticism isn't just good, its necessary.

So then, surprisingly, Minchin tweeted me back, claiming that good skepticism is good, but bad isn't. Well now, this is a whole new ball game isn't it? 'Good' is a concept. And its a subjective one. Your good might be my evil, and vice versa. Is good result based or intention based? Who decides? On what grounds? Its a hard conversation to have over Twitter using only 160 characters. I did explain this to him however, and he never tweeted back. Why would he?

It did make me marvel though, that this man, this science heavy, rational thinker would not apply the same scrutiny and reasoning on global warming. Why would he take some facts as red and not look into those from the other side?

Recently there has been some news regarding Michael Mann, the creator of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used to great effect by Al Gore in that brilliant piece of fiction 'An Inconvenient Truth' (for an explanation of why its fiction, see the bottom of this piece). Turns out Mann's hockey stick, showing that there has been a huge surge in CO2 and temperature recently was bullshit. To get to that conclusion though, Mann had to be subpoenaed by a court, demanding the algorithms he used to get the graph. They then fed random data into his program, and the graph was the same every time.

There is plenty of evidence that challenges climate change, and as such it is not the 'settled science' they'd have you think it is. No science is settled. Physics is a wonderful example of this. In the quest to find a theory of everything (TOE...chortle), physicists have propsed ideas such as M-theory, multiple dimensions, string theory, superstring theory, and even posited the notion that we are in a universe of bubbles, each bubble being a different universe. Mental, but who's to say? We are a tiny species on a small insignificant planet, and have no idea how the universe works. We don't even know how WE work yet. Not entirely. The brain remains a mystery.

It disappointed me that Minchin was so unscientific. I thought he was a good thinker. He's sadly been duped into feeling guilty about this stuff, like so many others. It seems the more they have the more guilty they feel, so the louder they shout about it. Rock stars and politicians banging on about climate change does one thing: makes them feel good. Anyone with half a life is too damn busy to worry about standby lights. Taking everything at face value is easy, it requires little cognitive effort and allows us to feel how we want to. Cognitive dissonance that results from not being sure isn't very relaxing and needs to be sorted fast.

There's a current documentary doing the rounds called Earthlings. Its about how humans are, like, really bad, and like, animals n that, they're like, really nice n stuff?

Yeah, its made by a fucking vegan. I can't see it being very objective. I will attempt to watch it without laughing, but I can't see it happening. Even the trailer was biased and ignorant, showing all the like, really bad things? That like, humans have done and stuff? Well he could have shown footage of doctors, have-a-go heroes, man walking on the moon, toddlers at play, scientific achievements. Anything fluffy. He was selective in the fucking trailer, he's going to be selective in the film. Its not an argument, its biased. The sad and scary thing is, people buy into it. Without thinking, without researching, without discussing. Because it suits them to do so. It makes them kind, caring, considerate. More the person they want you to think they are. More of the person they want to be.

Face value is a dangerous thing, though I appreciate there's little time to look into everything, certain things should be investigated. If you harbour the same opinions after you've done that, good on you, but if you don't....even better on you. I expect Minchin has the time and resources to look into things, but chooses not to. Its disappointing. I enjoyed our back and forth Tim, and can't tell whether you stopped replying to me because you were on to a loser, or you just thought that your time is worth more than communicating with one of your random ticket buyers.



The following is from the eco-warriors handbook, and is advice on how to handle 'deniers' on web sites, forums, chat rooms etc:

1) Use the 'Denier' insult or equate deniers with creationists
2) Imply links to big oil or fossil fuel industry
3) Use phrase "Oh yeh, it's all a massive conspiracy"
4) Quote selective data from 1979 onwards
5) Refer to Peer review process as if infallible
6) Refer to IPCC as if were not political organization
7) Claim all the worlds scientist agree
8) Denigrate as 'weatherman' world's most viewed climate site.
9) Denigrate reputation of scientist or journalist
10) General insults, best placed at end of comment.


ELEVEN “FACTS” CHALLENGED - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

• SOURCE: English and Wales High Court Decisions

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10.The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7 meters causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 32cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11.The film claims that rising sea levels have caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

After the court hearing, the film was no longer permitted to be shown in schools as an educational film. Result.

They're Really After You

There was something fishy in the Formula 1 race yesterday. One team needed their driver to win, but he hasn't won once this season because his team mate is so good. They both share the best car on the grid. So what to do about that? Give the guy who's so good a technical fault so their number two driver can win. That's all well and good, but a fault that means you lose the lead surely means you then fall further back into the field right?

Well, no. He 'somehow' managed to keep going as fast as his team mate. Not really a technical fault then was there?

Of course, it might all be above board but it was a little too prefect for me. Something didn't sit right.

This, combined with a few comments on the social networking site Facebook got me thinking about that glorious chestnut, conspiracy theories.

I don't know how anyone can fail to find them interesting. They merge fact and fiction in such an attractive way. The problem is, people fail to rule out the notion of co-incidence with regard to some of them, like the cult of 23. Try it with another number. 22 if you want, and you'll find ways in which the number 22 seems to be cropping up everywhere. But to see how co-incidence can rule, its 19:35 now, on the 28/11/11. So 28+11+11 = 50. 1+9+3+5 = 18. 50 - 18 = 32. Switch them around and YIKES! Its 23. Spooooky. Or not.

There are the rather tasteless conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Not least that it was all propagated by the Bush Administration. Now, I'm not sure how the Bush Administration could fuck everything else up so brilliantly and yet pull off 9/11 the way they did. That doesn't add up to me. If you've ever seen the movie Loose Change, you'll know there are some pretty unexplainable things around that event, and the 'people' want answers.

I want answers too. But I won't jump to the conclusion that it was planned and performed by the government of the United States. I'll wait for all possible explanations to come in, then I'll decide.

For me, its the people that buy into these things that are way more interesting than the theory itself. Which part of the truth isn't weird enough for these people? Why, in the words of Douglas Adams, isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it? Sometimes it iz wot it iz, and no amount of co-inky dinks are going to change that.

I propose that the hardened theorists are simply scared. Scared of the world and the people in it. They then give themselves a license to withdraw from society. They'll say its because they know who's really running it and why, because they know what's going on and we don't, but really its because they haven't the balls to participate in society and make something of it. Its much easier to run away to a cabin and await the apocalypse than to try and build a life for yourself full of meaning.

Furthermore, their stance that they know something you don't, that they're somehow clued in to the 'truth' appears to elevate them to a lofty status. One in which us sheep are the ignorant, and they the enlightened. Sadly, I do talk to someone who believes in a lot of this guff, and he drinks in the same pub as me. So this knowledge has gotten him.....where exactly? Nowhere. He is in the same position as I, having a drink in a pub. He knows something he considers important but doesn't act on it, save for trying to appear like a smart arse in front of everyone. And of course, if you challenge the belief, its like arguing with an environmentalist....you are always wrong, because they are always right. And if you provide evidence to the contrary, its because you're part of the system....man.

I'm all for an entertaining life, but the line between fact, fiction, and pure confirmation bias must be drawn. A mind is a parachute, and works best when its open, but it must also be a finely tuned bullshit detector. Believing a conspiracy theory over anything factual doesn't make you more intelligent. In fact I'd argue it makes you the gullible one.

Do I believe Red Bull fixed the race? To be honest I couldn't care less. I hate the fuckers anyway. The point is I won't let it dictate my life or my attitudes towards other people.

School of Life

I am as guilty of this as the next man. Or at least, I used to be. When I was 16 all my friends decided they were going to bugger off and go to University, leaving me with literally no-one to play with. Of course the ego kicks in defensive, and I declared that University be a waste of time. There was no jobs anyway, I reasoned, so why go and get a degree to end up jobless when you could just be jobless anyway.

A friend of mine at the time, Din, asked if I could understand the notion of simply learning because its good to learn, and one may have a love of the subject. Being young, and stupid, I told him I had no idea what he was on about.

So today, a full half my life on, I find myself at University having to defend myself against exactly the kind of thing I was saying all those years ago. Many people on the social networking site Facebook list as their education 'School of Life'.

This is intended to represent many things. Firstly, that they've seen it and done it. Whatever it is, they've experienced it and have the scars to show. Secondly, it illustrates that they don't need no education, they've learnt enough. GCSE's were a waste of time, they just left school and got on with the business of making money.

The third thing I believe it implies, is that those who have got an education can't possibly know or have experienced as much as they. Let's be clear, there are two schools of skill. There's the practical, and the academic. Sure, some boffin with his face in a book all day would be ill-prepared to fix your plumbing. But I wouldn't trust a plumber to do brain surgery either. Is one better than the other? I'd say not. I'd say each one has its merits and each practitioner should be equally proud of their work.

The other day I posted a humorous Facebook update, and to cut a long story short, I was met with a comment by one of my friends that, as a student, I don't live in the 'real world'. Now I'm not sure which world I live in then, because I assure you if there's a nuclear war I will be affected. If there's a drought or food shortage, I will find myself hungry or thirsty. I pay my bills. I pay my rent. I pay to keep an automobile on the road, no small task these days. When I need food, I have to pay for it. Which part of all this is not living in the real world?

One suspects living in the 'real world' entails getting your hands dirty for a living. But we can't all do that, it just wouldn't work.

Happily, we can attribute this attitude to a wonderful thing called the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognise their errors. They therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own skills as above average.

Basically then, idiots refuse to believe they're wrong about anything because they're incapable of seeing that they're wrong about anything. A vicious circle, and a dangerous one too.

This now has the danger of sounding like snobbery, and claiming that anyone who hasn't been to University is an idiot. Not so. I know many smart people who hold few to no qualifications. They can however, see that self-improvement is a good thing, and following a chosen path is an admirable thing, and supporting your friends with their choices is the best thing.

Da Way I Iz

Its odd isn't it, the way people can justify their actions.

Perhaps its simply the way things are now, and things really were better in 'the good old days', or perhaps its always been this way, and as we grow older we just begin to tire of certain things.

I speak to many people who think everything is more fucked up now than its ever been. I'd question whether their perception is merely selective and not accurate, and influenced by what they want to see rather than what they really see.

External and internal attributions are common. We take credit for the good things that happen to us, and palm off the bad as things out of our control. Often we refer to 'luck' as well, just to back up our claims. We also make the fundamental attribution error, which is to blame other people for their actions when it was external factors that were more likely to motivate or dictate their behaviour.

Somebody may hate men (they're allowed to) because they've been hurt by one or two in the past. In a world of seven billion people, with just over half of them being men, I'd consider it a trifle unfair to judge every member of a gender on the actions of one or two of them. Yet this seems quite plausible to some.

What's gotten stuck in my craw though, is this notion of "Its just the way I am", and then any excuse that follows it. There's those that expect you to excuse their actions because that's just them.

Well...no. Actually. No I won't.

I used to work with a girl who claimed no-one should talk to her before 10 AM, as she hadn't woken up by then. If you did, it was like she had a license to bite your head off with her piss poor attitude. Her excuse was always the same, she'd say "You know I'm tired and cranky before 10".

Immediately, she'd turned the blame on to me for having the audacity to attempt communication before the sun reaches a certain point in the sky. She could get to bed earlier and give her body the required amount of rest. She could attempt to swallow her fatigue and just deal with a brief exchange of information through gritted teeth, since the workplace contains many examples of doing things you just would rather not do. Instead, she chose to just say its the way she is, and everyone else has to work around her and deal with it.

The arrogance of "Its just the way I am" is lost on many.

You may well be that way, but any reluctance to try and improve that part of yourself others find disagreeable, is simply ignorance and ego on your part. Why bother trying to be a better person, when really the whole world should just learn to accept you and your faults, right? Know me, know my ways? If the rest of seven billion idiots could just realise the way you are, the world would be a better place then?

Its common that those who believe the world to suck are often guilty of this kind of social ineptitude. Which again makes me believe its a perceptual problem rather than any real one grounded in reality.

We do have our own little ways, and they're what make each one of us each one of us. Admitting however, that perhaps everything isn't perfect with us is a step we should all take. If we then wish to attempt change for the better that's admirable. If we don't, perhaps it would be wise to not just expect everyone else to fall in line with our moods, attitudes and beliefs.