Andy Gray, Richard Keys - Loose Men

This is a hot topic right now, but it alarmed me today when my Psychology lecturer sided with the idiots and said it was right that Gray was fired and Richard Keys resigned.

If you don't know the story - presumably because you've been living under a rock on Mars - I am not about to relate it here. I could simplify it, although the PC among you may accuse me of missing the point through simplification.

Instead, lets look at 'sexism' in Britain today. I direct you firstly, to the most horrific, horrible, sickening bunch of bitches ever to grace our screens...the Loose Women.

Click on this clip, and watch just the first 32 seconds of it.

You'll see Jackie Brambles pull a sad face as if men are pathetic for making an issue of this, and you'll hear and see Coleen Nolan ask what the problem is with men being branded 'stupid and lazy'. They don't have a problem with that. Its okay to brand a gender stupid and lazy on national television. Now, get someone to go on TV and brand all women similar adjectives. You won't last five minutes.

Okay now STOP. If you're a woman...you may be smiling, you may be thinking this blog pointless or pathetic or just another 'man' not being a 'man' about things. You probably refuse to accept that there is a point here. Get on with it, right?

This is a huge part of the problem. The 'ladies' (yeah, right) on Loose Women can say what they please about men. The reason for this, is that there is a tremendous amount of pressure on men to cut down on sexism. They must be seen to be treating both genders equally. Women however, have no such pressure. Their behaviour - however sexist - is permissible. 'Man-bashing' comments are accepted and even encouraged.

This is not equality. Equality would be reserving the same scandalous face for Andy Gray as you did for Coleen Nolan. And that just did not - and will not - happen.

The hypocrisy is very real, and it shows no sign of stopping. The TV advert discussed by the sexist bastards on Loose Women was not banned, despite its derogatory portrayal of men. It was meant as a 'joke' Jackie Brambles tells us. Interesting how when its a joke about men its funny, and when its a joke about women, its sexist. Thankfully Lynda Bellingham tries to talk sense into the proceedings but is met with a rather weak excuse from former Mrs Chris Evans, Carol McGiffin, namely that women have been patronised for years in TV adverts.

So in the interest of equality and moving on...men should now get the piss ripped out of them? Progress.

As the discussion moves on, they almost come to their senses until Nolan steps up again with another sexist remark about men, and not women, doing DIY, "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?" is her opinion on it. Brilliant. Just imagine if that were a man talking about a woman doing cleaning on national TV. He'd be torn limb from sexist limb.

Following on from this, McGiffin makes reference to the size of her boyfriend's penis, saying "He's aVERY grown up man" and holding her hands some distance apart.

How is this any different from the exchange Richard Keys found himself in? If a male presenter talked about the size of his girlfriend's tits, what do you think would happen?

And the thing is, Keys was off air. The cunts on Loose Women are very much ON air, they know what they're saying and...here's the thing that really winds me up:

THEY GET AWAY WITH IT.

Feminism isn't about being more powerful than men, its about having the same rights as them. You need to tell more women this, they seem to have forgotten. I'm all for them having the same rights as us. I don't believe in glass ceilings, I think a woman should be on the same pay as a man if she's doing the same job as him. This is obvious stuff that sadly isn't happening. More does need to be done in those areas but you can see the gaps closing. Slowly but surely, women are catching up and its a splendid thing.

If you're a man out there reading this ask yourself: Would you press charges if a woman hit you?

I'm guessing the majority of you would say no. Why? A blow to your ego? Possibly. Its just not the done thing is it? But, in the name of all that's equal, it damn well should be. I don't agree with hitting women so by definition, I don't agree with hitting anybody. We're equal, and violence sucks.

Now check this out, there's no real need to watch all of it:

This was to be a meeting to discuss the possibility of giving male victims of domestic violence the same social services that are currently only available to women. See what happened? 'Feminists' - I use quotations because they're not feminist, they're sexist - charge in and start coming out with several different flavours of bullshit. What's wrong with giving men the same care if they've been abused? Equal, remember? I think, given the pressure on men to be tough, it was damn brave of those gentlemen to even attend and what happens when they do? A bunch of ignorant bastards storm in, too blinkered to realise that yes, you can commit a violent act against a man and yes, its still wrong.

I believe this hypocrisy should be addressed. Andy Gray has unwittingly stirred this up, and I hope people are paying attention and I hope they're smart enough to realise it stinks. Some women will dismiss it as 'whining' but you should ask yourself why they're doing that. Are they scared? Of what....equality? But that's what they're after isn't it?

A Useful Guide

Some may take this as preachy. Others may wonder what the hell I know. I care not, this is my space and I'll post what I choose.

I have spent the last 15 years playing in bands. I'd played in bands for a while before that but we rarely gigged and were very crap. Once I formed Far-Cue with Badger, we started gigging heavily. Once I joined Frenzy, I gigged even more. Both bands provided many lessons, many experiences that I wish to put forth now, so for anyone thinking of starting a band read on and learn from my errors. I see a lot of local bands doing their first or second gig and I feel that if they were armed with this guide from the start, the world would be a better place for them...and me.

1) You are not more important than the person standing next to you.

And I don't just mean your band mates, I mean the audience too. So you can play an instrument, so you can sing. How do you know what they can do? The ability to do something does not elevate you above those that can't do it. This rule should apply to everyone from Bono to Bad News Bob. You are not special. You are there to entertain, not so that people can kiss your ass.

2) Your gear does not define your talent.

So often I go and watch local bands who spend hundreds - sometimes thousands - of pounds (usually paid for by the parents) on gear and they're shit. "All the gear no idea" as someone once said. Learn to play well, both in private and in public first, then worry about spending money on gear. Let me tell you this: when you start gigging often enough you won't want to spend money on gear. Your instrument becomes worn and damaged, covered in beer and sweat, and it can break your heart.

3) Once you have set your gear up. LEAVE IT ALONE.

Guitarists are the worst for this, followed very closely by drummers. They set their gear up, dial in a sound and volume, then proceed to wank themselves silly playing their latest riff or fill, thinking that the whole venue is interested in just how well they can play. Once you've established that your gear works, why carry on playing? What are you achieving? If you have a problem, by all means sort it out but if you want to warm up your fingers you can do it unplugged. Drummers too, set your kit how you like it then leave it. Its not going anywhere.

4) Be a set-list Jedi.

If you're going to be brave enough to play your own songs in a new venue, consider throwing in a crowd-pleaser every now and then. Its a drain on your audience's patience to constantly throw your own material at them. Reward them for this patience with something they know. They'll thank you for it. Also, if you're unsure of how a song may go down, park it next to one you know will be well received. It's like giving it support.

5) Watch the other guy.

I've seen many new bands commit this crime. You're not the only one on stage. Just because a song has gone a certain way in rehearsal, it doesn't mean it will go that way live. Watch everyone else before a song starts and definitely as it ends. They may do something, they may not do something. There could a problem - a dropped stick, a broken string, someone tuning up. Someone could be wiping the sweat from their face and as such will be unable to come in. You'll never know if you don't use your eyes.

6) Don't expect your friends to support you every time.

Your first few gigs will no doubt contain a great many of your friends and family. They won't be there every time. They won't experience the same giddy thrill as you do when you perform. They're proud of you, they just have lives of their own. Besides, it's good to escape from that safety zone, it gives you confidence.

7) Respect the landlord.*

Or whoever owns the place or is putting the gig on. You are one of many bands they get to play and if you don't want the gig or think you're above it, they'll find someone else. Refer to point 1. You are not special.

8) Don't do it for the money.

Do it because you love it. When you stop loving it, quit. There will be very little money playing the toilet circuit, so you need to find another source of motivation.

9) Plug up.

I don't do this, and I don't know anyone else who does either but, take it from someone with perpetually ringing ears: wear ear plugs. Medical science has not yet found a cure for tinnitus.

10) Just because you've packed down, it doesn't mean everyone else has.

Drummers go through hell with their stuff. If you're the lead singer and only had to pack a mic away, don't be a cunt. Help people with their gear. You'd appreciate it, so will they. Refer to point 1.

11) Only ten per cent of your time in a band is spent on stage.

The other ninety is spent doing boring things like writing, rehearsing, web site-ing, networking, negotiating, fixing vans, stealing microphones. Its one of the reasons you should really enjoy the time you get to play because the rest of it is hell. If you don't do the boring stuff however, you won't get the good stuff.

* Some landlords are impossible to respect because they're idiots. Do not play their venues.

Furthermore, though you should be appreciative of the gig, don't be ripped off either. If YOU accept a low fee for playing, then the landlord will use this as a ball park or example for other bands and you'll drag everyone down to your idea of pay. Go too high however, and you won't get to play. Use your common, and your self-respect. People rarely see what goes on behind the scenes and as such they don't know how hard you've worked for that hour and a half on stage. Make sure your audience rewards you with appreciation and the landlord rewards you with beer and money.

Simple isn't it. Now go. Do.

As Simple As You Make It

Lord Reith, first director-general of the BBC, once said "There are some people whom it is one's duty to annoy".

For me, these people are environmentalists. Why do I have such a beef with them? Well, its because they're prime exponents of that which we are all guilty of. Well, two things actually.

The first is confirmation bias and the second is motivated reasoning.

Confirmation bias is where you look for the thing that backs up your belief and ignore everything else. So if you are a feminist for example, you'll constantly notice ways in which women are repressed, and ignore the progress in equality.

We are all guilty of confirmation bias. One and all. However, in the case of environmentalists, they are not happy with just accepting that which they find useful and rejecting anything they don't. Instead, they aggressively attack that which contradicts or challenges their beliefs. This aggression means that they are unable to rationally discuss or intelligently defend their argument, resorting instead to childish labelling. They call anyone who opposes their view 'flat-earthers' or far more simply, 'idiots'.

For me this makes it very difficult to take anything they say seriously. The science for a lot of environmentalism is not yet proven. It remains a very difficult thing to prove. The problem is the cost of acting on this speculation or hypothesis is running into billions of pounds. I certainly hope they're right. I hope the planet is dying because if it isn't, its the biggest waste of money humanity has ever been guilty of.

Further to confirmation bias, there is motivated reasoning. This is where we accept what we wish to believe with less scrutiny than that which we don't. So anything that backs up your belief needs less proof than that which does not. Its a bit more detailed than confirmation bias but no less effective.

Wind farms for instance. An environmentalist looks at them and sees clean energy provided by Mother Nature. This is because that is what they want to believe. They don't want to know the ins and outs of it. They haven't looked into what happens when there's not enough wind to turn the turbines. Why? Because its inconvenient to their ideals. I have looked into it because I want to annoy these people with things that contradict their beliefs.

I'm churning these thoughts over in my mind because today I read a newspaper article about incineration plants. There's plans afoot to build a great many of these and to burn a lot more rubbish rather than put it in landfill. This is because the EU have imposed landfill restrictions on us and we have to bow down and do whatever it takes to make the EU happy.

Of course our friends of the earth are up in arms about it. But, they're not happy with landfill either. So, we can't burn it (CO2) and we can't dump it in landfill (damaging to the environment and also CO2).

What then, is the answer? Here's the problem: they don't know either.

Once again they're happy to point out all the things we shouldn't be doing yet never offer an alternative. If any of you have kids, you'll know what it's like to deal with an indecisive petulant child every now and then. This is the hard-core environmentalists to a tee. Whatever you suggest, they piss and whine about it yet never have an answer themselves. If you don't have an alternative, I might argue that your best course of action is silence.

We are obviously all guilty of things such as confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. We don't want to be wrong about things if we can help it, and reading or hearing evidence contrary to those opinions we've done alright with up to now can be rather scary. It means we have to re-evaluate, re-think, and perhaps admit to being wrong.

The beauty and brilliance of science is the way in which it continually questions itself. New evidence comes to light and it has an effect on previous thinking. As such, there are very few definites in the world. Obama claimed the science behind climate change is 'beyond dispute'. ALL science is subject to dispute. By its very nature it is. Just because Barack Obama says it, it doesn't make it any more true. He is a man, that's all. He takes a shit like everyone else.

It's my opinion that those that lose their cool first in an argument are more likely to be wrong. Once they start getting shirty it's because they're being backed into a corner, so they come out fighting. I look at a lot of Forums and discussion pages on the internet, and I guarantee you, those that get pissy first are the environmentalists. They act like you don't care, like no-one could possibly care as much as they do. They act like they're trying to save this planet and you're trying to destroy it. They act like you're an idiot, and they've read the lot.

The truth is most of them know as much as you. We're all just guessing, hoping, floundering. The difference is i'm not shoving my guess-work down people's throats. I'm not extrapolating billions of pounds from the governments of the world to fund my guess-work. I'm not putting my guess-work across as science.

The sad truth is, a lot of humans have it pretty good on earth right now. They don't have a war to fight, they don't have pieces of a war to pick up. They don't have to hunt for food or worry about displeasing a God. They've had the universe explained to them, they don't think illnesses are curses. They know stuff. As such, they don't know what to do with themselves. So they find themselves a catastrophe, something they can feel bad about. And then, with all the evidence of a TV evangelist, they go out into the world to put things right.

Annoy these people. Press their buttons. It's remarkably easy. They deserve to be irritated. Consider it your duty.

Perspectives

Rather than write some kind of review of the year, i thought it far better - and hopefully more interesting - to write about an observation. I've made this observation before, after i was promoted at work, but now as i find myself a mature student, this observation becomes more apparent and ultimately more grating.

My observation is difficult to spell out succinctly, and would make for a rather poor blog post so i'll explain it all and you can see what i mean.

Sometimes you do things that surprise your family, friends and best of all, yourself. Me going to College was one such move, and me going to University was another. When you become good friends with someone, its kind of the deal that you want the best for them. It comes out of love and its the same reason people in supposedly stable relationships break up; because they want the best for each other.

I only have a few good friends, friends whose opinion i'd value and take on board. I got mixed reactions to going to college, but mostly positive reactions to the news that i was going to University.

Now, here's where it gets weird. It's usually the case that you mock the things you don't understand. A lack of understanding can bring about fear, and the fear is dealt with by taking the piss. It's all very interesting and i've only touched on the surface here, but just give it some thought and you'll realise it to be true.

I had, and continue to have, some piss taking for being a mature student. This is fine, i can both take it and understand it. However, the problem i have is with people saying how much i've changed since starting University. I'm sure i have changed a bit. People always change in new situations. Its how we adapt. What i think people miss though, is how their attitude has changed towards me.

This brings about more change than i've gone through. Now, people think whenever i say a word with more than 3 syllables, it's because i've learnt it at University. Whenever i say something interesting, it's because i learnt it at University. Whenever i argue my point, i'm being arrogant because i think i know it all because i'm at University.

The sad truth is, i've always been arrogant with my point of view, i've always tried my best to say things that are relevant and interesting, and because i like to read i occasionally pick up words longer than 3 syllables. I make no apologies for any of it.

Trouble is, people seek out the things that back up their theory and ignore everything else. I'm expected to change into a smart-arse snob through University attendance, so anything that can be seen to be related to that is plucked from a conversation and expanded on. The rest, the bits that are 'still me', are ignored because they don't back up the expectations.

It's selective listening. The down-side is i get accused of changing into someone horrible when really, it's the people listening that have changed the way they're listening to me.

The environment you find yourself in changes your behaviour. It has to. People change all the time, and its a good thing. I don't know why you should be ridiculed for changing yourself, especially if the direction you're trying to head in is For The Better. I detest those people that rip the piss out of others trying to give up smoking. Anyone who does is both a smoker themselves, and utterly incapable of giving it up themselves. It's envy, pure and simple. I've seen these cunts blow smoke in the faces of those trying to give it up, in an attempt to what? Get them started again, to what? Spend tens of thousands of pounds on cigarettes, for what? To die a painful, cancer-ridden death. That's a friend is it? You can keep that kind of friend.

I suppose i should feel flattered, that the old me was such a splendid chap people don't want to see him go, but living your life to suit others is insane and will leave you very bitter. You'll say you're angry at everyone else but really you're just pissed with yourself for letting them dictate how you've lived your life.

I cannot change the behaviour of others (or can i?), but i can learn to ignore it. Of all the piss taking about being 'back at school' i seem to receive, i find it humorous that those doing the piss taking are the ones acting like they're in a playground.

The Perfect Drug

Bob Ainsworth is a home office minister, and has recently called for all drugs to be legalised in an effort to beat the criminals who supply it on the streets. Or rather, the people who supply it to the people who supply it on the streets. Tackling street dealers annoys me. Arresting a street dealer is like blocking up one of those tiny holes in the end of a watering can, and wondering why water still comes out when you tip it. You need to remove the source, then you don't have to worry about the little holes. Plus, think of all the time and money has gone into prosecuting our friend on the streets. It does nothing. Acheives nothing. Changes nothing.

It's the same as prosecuting people who download child porn off the internet. By all means find these people but don't prosecute them, offer them help. They are mentally ill and should be treated as such. I'll tell you who you can go after though: the people who make it, upload it on to the web, and charge money for the mentally ill to view it. That's where the problem is so that's where you go to solve it.

Ainsworth believes the medical profession should supply drugs through prescription. Logistically, i can see problems there. I know a huge amount of people who smoke that pathetic drug, cannabis. I can forsee very long queues of people wanting to get a 'script for that, and Boots would have to turn into a warehouse rather than a high street store to keep up with demand.

However when it comes to hard drugs, the notion of prescriptions should be welcomed. Heroin is at best 20 - 25% pure according to a recent study of heroin scored on the streets of Liverpool. What else then, is also going into their bodies? Do you even care?

Cocaine - probably a greater degree of purity, but it can be cut with glucose powder if you're lucky, and all kinds of awful things if you're not.

So not all good news for the junkie, but the idea that legalisation of such substances would take Johnny Pusher off the street is daft. The idea that it would do away with the shadowy heads of organisations that bring the drugs into the country, and cut off their earnings - which run into millions - is even more daft. These people won't just say "It was fun while it lasted" and then apply at McDonald's. They'll move on. Fraud. Identity theft. Heck, even armed robberies. Johnny Pusher will mug you, and our shadowy underworld figure will steal the passcode to your internet bank account.

As a human, in possession of a mind and body, i should be allowed to do as i wish with it.
However, we must bear in mind that some people are idiots. Well, actually there's quite a lot of idiots, just take a walk outside you'll spot 'em. I use to oppose the idea of banning films. I believed they were pieces of art, i believed they were skillfully made and i believed they had no effect on a person's disposition. I didn't believe they could influence someone in a negative fashion and that if someone wanted to perpetrate a crime, they would do so without having watched Goodfellas before hand. Now, i'm not so sure. Some people really are fucking idiots, and i wouldn't let them loose with a remote control. They cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, and they consider themselves to be someone - or something - they're not.

If i want to take cocaine, to wake me up and make me feel good, i should be allowed to do so. I should be allowed to take the money into a reputable establishment and ask for it. The product i am given should be as pure as it can get without making my heart explode, and i should be given a clean tube with which to administer the drug. Once i've had my enjoyment, i can then just forget about it for a while until i fancy another boost.

Seems simple, but this is the pattern of drinking for some. They dip in and out, they socialise with it, then they return to life. For others, they become alcoholics, and for some social or recreational drug users, they become addicted. Just because i know when enough is enough, we must remember that some people are fucking idiots, and they don't know where the line is. Or, they do, but they want to impress their friends by stepping over it.

I read a good question the other day; "Would you rather bump into a drunk, or someone who's stoned at three in the morning on a city street?"
For me, it'd be the stoner every time. He might try and enlighten me, he might laugh at me - wouldn't be the first -, he might try and get me to 'toke' with him.
What he wouldn't do, is ask me what i was fucking looking at before threatening to harm me physically. We've all been there. Drunks are assholes. Angry drunks are cunts.

Yet alcohol is widely available. And there's good alcohol (Guinness and Jamesons) and shit alcohol (Hofmeister and Jack Daniels). So you pays your money, you gets a-wasted. The state however, makes a whole lot of cash from your booze and they have the potential to do so with legalisation of drugs.

Let's talk frankly here, they're called drugs because they make you feel better. Perhaps the root of the matter, the question of why people are feeling bad enough to want to take drugs should be addressed. Drugs are a sticking plaster, sometimes over an amputation. As such, they won't work. No matter how big the plaster, you still have a problem.

I applaud Ainsworth's style, his guts, and his attempts to try and discuss ways ahead with Britain's drug problems and its so-called 'War On Drugs'. Not sure how you can either wage or win a war with an inaminate object but there you go. Of course the hand-wringers will win, and Bob will be shouted down and probably fired.

I applaud the idea of legalistation. Because i'm a grown up. Because i'm a human. Because i believe a break from reality is essential every now and then. Because i believe the brain to be a marvellous thing, and to stimulate it in various ways through chemicals is no different to looking at porn or reading a poem. Stick your head in an fMRI machine whilst doing coke, looking at Tori Black going for it, or appreciating Yeats, and areas of your brain will fire up relating to pleasure. That's it. That's all drugs do. Fire up and stimulate areas of organic matter. It seems painfully stupid to me to try and stop people having fun and enjoying life, but certainly the coalition seem hell-bent on putting the mockers on it. Full marks to Ainsworth then.

I find it ironic also that most of the customers for coke deals are people who work in the City for huge corporations. My friend told me that i don't understand irony. Which was ironic because we were waiting for a bus.

Feeling Karma

There's an awful lot of blah about Karma on the social networking site, Facebook.

Whenever someone is appalled at the actions of others, they seem to make posts pertaining to the idea of Karma sorting this person out.

It's as if Karma is some kind of bigger brother who's always on the look out for anyone being a shit.

What's funny to me is that if these same people changed the word Karma for the word God, they'd probably feel very foolish. Or rather, if i started using the word God instead of Karma, they'd make fun of me and claim to be intellectually superior. In fact the Hindus believe God is behind Karma.

Karma certainly feels like the new lord. The omniscient, ever watchful master that makes everything all right. People will get their just desserts because Karma is on the Kase. Just like the Christian Deity, Karma has its roots in a religion and cannot be proved or disproved.

Many people understand a very simplistic idea of Karma. Namely, that if you wrong someone, you'll get yours. Not necessarily from them, but some other aspect of your life that will teach you the lesson you sorely need. Karma is more involved than that, but i feel that this Sainsbury's Basics idea of Karma is the one people allude to.

Here's my beef with Karma: it's a complete cop-out. It basically means you get to leave the entire situation alone and depend on some other-worldy form of justice to sort everyone out for you. Karma is the universal police force. Not only that, Karma transcends lives - in Buddhism at least - so you could get punished in your 'next life' for something you did in this one. This makes it completely impossible to prove. How fortunate for Buddhists everywhere.

Picture the scene; it's Christmas Day. You've got all the family round, all wearing nice clobber. All wearing silly Xmas hats but what the hey? Tis the season. There's roast turkey plus all those trimmings you hear so much about. You've exchanged gifts and all been happy with the results. You just raise a glass to toast family, friends, and the end of a hard year and what happens?

A big, sweaty, skin headed biker barges in the door. He's wearing dirty leather. His tattoos are so old they're just blue blobs, the arms they sit in could suffocate a grizzly bear. He grabs your Mother, slaps her round the face - her wine goes everywhere - and then bends her over the table. He proceeds to violate her, anally, then uses your serviette to wipe the blood from his cock, before leaving the room.

There is silence.

You lean back and say "Boy, I would NOT like to be him when Karma gets hold of him."

Or, you make every effort you can to take the brute down before he has a chance to even grab your favourite relative.

You wouldn't leave some things to a supernatural source, so why leave others if they peeve you so?

It's the same with medicine, when people claim to use Echinacea to both stave off and fight colds, or when they use any other herbal, 'alternative' medicine to help them with ailments.

Would these same people choose a herbal alternative to morphine when they're laid up with cancerous tumours? What about if they get run over and suffer massive internal injuries? Or hey, what about a routine kidney stone operation?

When you're in the kind of pain that makes you want to pass out, i somehow doubt you'll be asking what the herbal alternative to morphine is. I imagine you'd be begging the nurses to take the pain away by whatever means possible.

It's the same with Karma. There's certain things you shouldn't leave to some wishy-washy, completely unproven - and unprovable - bullshit to sort out.

Gandhi said something like the problem with an eye for an eye is that it makes the whole world blind. Karma is your eye for an eye. It just takes you out of the equation. When people bring up Karmic consequences, i have no doubt they do it with a vicious streak about them. They want to do the punishing, but it's against their character to do so. Or at least, it's against the kind of character they aspire to be.

So, they leave it to a mythical force to sort out.

The other thing with Karma is, for those that buy into it, to what extent are your actions good because you're a good person? Or, being good for good's sake?

If you act in an altruistic manner thinking "I'll do this, then buy a lottery ticket....if Karma's on my side i should win something", then apparently Karma doesn't work. It only works if its a natural action.

What garbage. How the hell does Karma know what you're thinking? The known universe is billions and billions of light years across. And i'm supposed to believe that it's bothered with the action of an insignificant human down here on a tiny planet in the Milky Way called Earth?

I doubt it. I really do.

Karma then. For those that expect rewards for good behaviour, those too gutless to sort out the bad guys, and those too intelligent to believe in God....yet not smart enough to see how Karma is a form of God.

An odd concept. And one that should be saved for TV programmes about blokes called Earl.

(Anti-Benefit Television Blues)

T'other day there was rather a grand speech made by a memeber of the Coalition government. I looked in a dictionary the other day, and apparently Coalition means Conservative Party.
This lanky fellow, Iain Duncan Smith - or IDS as he's known....how upsetting to be one letter away from an embarrassing condition - claimed that with the measures he was laying down, the benefits system in this country would be shaken up to the point where they actually work. And ideally, the people that once claimed them would work too.

No more would the bone idle sit back doing nowt whilst decent folk graft away supporting them.
It's a lovely idea. It seems that those that genuinely require benefits usually get the third degree about them.
Where i used to live, in Frome, there was a group of 'people' - i prefer the term 'organ bags' because donating their organs is both the only thing they're fit for, and the only decent act they could possibly do in this world - that were perfectly healthy, yet had never done a days work in their lives.
They'd wander around the town making a nusiance of themselves. They wore designer clobber, smoked weed etc. All paid for by someone else. What annoyed me most about them was not the fact they were doing this, but that the authorities seemed content to write them off.
They're no good for work, even though they can, so let's just let them spend their lives on the dole.
Why? When i got made redundant and tried to sign on, i was met with a shit storm and told if i wasn't in a job after three months i was in trouble. Felt a trifle unfair i have to say.

I'm willing to bet that despite these new measures, that same gang of wasters will be walking the streets of Frome doing nothing, learning nothing, acheiving nothing.

IDS (Chortle) made reference to the statistic that there is currently 450,000 jobs available in this country, and frankly there was no reason for it.
IDS forgot to mention there's approximately 1.5 million on the dole right now. So, even without my abacus, i can see that the figures don't add up and that there'll be a million people with no job to apply for yet they'll be told they have to otherwise they won't get benefits.
IDS also forgot to take into account those qualified for the 450,000 jobs and also those with the experience and also geographical logistics.

So. Here's my idea. I've run it past a few people and always been met with the same response but i'm sticking by it.
I think people don't like to be threatened. I think they'll kick back if you do so. It's an instinct.
Instead of saying 'Get a job or else', we need to change things around so these people want a job.
And when i say these people i mean those terminal dole-ies. Those that can but won't. Those that have been can't-ing but won't-ing for many a moon.

My solution is a simple one: take their televisions away.
The idiot box provides boredom relief and company for the terminal doley. They kind of need it.
Imagine their existence without it. The silence. The space where it should be. The lack of Kyle, Street, and Enders. I imagine their lives would become rather grey rather quickly.

Once they gain successful employment, and stick to it for over 3 months, then, and only then, may they be granted the right to own a television set. Be it plasma or cathode ray tube. We shall not discriminate on technology.

The usual response i get from people is that it's an infringement of human rights. Well, we all know that the law can be changed and we all know the human rights act can be side-stepped.

Even if the lack of tv doesn't spurn our organ bags into work, it may lead them to the library, it may lead them to self-evaluate, it may lead them to think.

I want to try this. As a budding psychologist, i want to do this experiment and i want to record the consequences. I want to make sure my idea isn't romanticising, i want to examine relationships and attitudes before and after the TV has gone. It will be my own Stanford Prison Experiment and earn me a doctorate. Who knows? If it works so will the people taking part in the experiment. If it doesn't, its no more screwy than the Coalition plan to squeeze 1.5 million people in 450,000 jobs.