Vito DVD Review
The equality battle still rages on. Profile pictures all over the internet are red with an equal sign showing viral activism for the right to marry whoever. Viral activism is the result of years of activism by the closeted, cornered few that turned into many. Now with a few clicks it’s OK to want these equal rights, it’s almost expected in the more liberal generation, but before that there was oppression. An entire group of people were assaulted for being themselves in a land that proudly boasts freedom – an irony that the naysayers of the country still don’t get. One of the biggest activists that brought this uprise was Vito Russo who helped stop gay oppression, then spread it further, then pushed on to publicise the cruelties of an ignoring government with the ’80s AIDS epidemic. An activist whose life was to be an activist – no matter what he conquered, there were other problems he deemed that needed solving.
All Christians are terrorists.
Now that we know that the atrocity that was the Norway Attacks was done by a Christian, is it time to start being prejudiced against them? After all, that’s what we did after 9/11 against Islam. And because of the population density differences, this attack was twice as devastating to Norway. Should we be irrational against a rich, “civilised” religion now? It seems only fair.
This massacre of seventy-seven people - eight in the Oslo bomb and sixty-nine in the Utøya shooting - was done by a Christian. The man who shot teenagers and slaughtered them, believed in God and Jesus Christ so how does that make atheism that bad? I haven’t massacred anyone and I don’t plan on it either. This far-right, self-proclaimed martyr said that it was “atrocious but necessary” and claims he’s done nothing wrong. How can someone who believes in God see this as right? He was an Islamophobic blogger who posted on anti-Islam forums (can’t believe they actually exist, that’s disgusting) and supported groups like the EDL.
It’s time to be prejudiced against Christians. Time to do “random” screen checks to anyone who is a white Christian and make them the victim of delays, cavity searches and mangled luggage from searches. Every time we see a Christian on a flight we’ll get nervous and treat them has potential terrorists. They’ll feel people staring at them with paranoid eyes. They’ll be the victim of insults, mockery and abuse. People will walk past them and laugh at their religious attire then get angry that they say they have to wear it and propose rules for them or simply tell them to “go back where they came from” because no true, original Briton will do anything wrong. It’s not like a lot of Britons do nothing all day but claim money, do drugs, commit crimes and be racist bigots because they own this place.
Now, when people make racist remarks starting with “I’m not racist but”, the Christians will be the punchline, the source of abuse and not Islam. Christians won’t be allowed to impose their views on our parliament. They’ll try to impose their views with improper and disrespectful protests. The Sun will run headlines talking about a minority of Christians being offended by something and everyone will be infuriated. Everyone who wears a crucifix will be instantly identified as a terrorist because they fit the demographic. They’ll be made unwelcome, Maybe some Jews will suffer the consequences because they might look Christian like just like Sikhs and Hindus did after 9/11 and still do now.
Of course that won’t happen to Christians because we’re a Christian country and so is America. The richest countries are Christian and we understand Christianity so we know that those aren’t Christian ideals. We know that Christianity didn’t teach him to do that tragedy. Then, something we don’t understand comes along and they blame it. They tear it apart with ignorance and never try to understand it because they don’t want to.
Our disgusting western civilisation - what irony there - managed to stereotype Islam which has 1.5bn believers. That’s saying that one-sixth of the population are terrorists. Now, you think they’d blame religion again in this case, especially as as soon as it happened they were claiming al Qaeda or some Islam extremist group were behind it. Do you know what they’re going to blame? Games.
On Anders Breivik’s Facebook profile, they found that one his hobbies was to play video games and they found out that one of his favourite games was Call of Duty. That’s right. They’ll know spout how he learnt how to use a gun because of Call of Duty and that the violence in it made him the psychotic sociopath he is today. Fox News went straight for the jugular of this. Why can’t they blame something real? Like a chemical imbalance or the propaganda that he was clearly spewed.
Instead, they’ll probably still blame Islam. They’ll say that what he did was extreme but it was a wake up call to some Islamophobic propaganda that they love to say. Just face it, you’re racist. Stop blaming a certain demographic. I think I’ll start the Christian prejudice and tell some nearby staff that I’m nervous because of the Norway Attacks. They’ll just laugh and ignore it but if it was someone who fitted the Muslim demographic, they’d act upon it instantly…
F1, the BBC and Sky,
It’s been in discussion for a few weeks now. The F1 viewing figures are at a ten-year high so why wouldn’t they want a slice of the pie? Sky cash in a lot on things which have been done well by other channels and then just shove tonnes of money towards it to outbid the others. It’s a form of financial bullying. It’s like Chelsea and Man City in the Premier League; they have the funding to just offer extortionate amount of money to the teams and the players with wages in insane excess. Sky just bitch slapped the BBC in the face with their wads of cash then took their cash cow.
Now, I’ll either have to miss half the season next year or shell out £30 a month just to catch up on the other races. At least the race’ll be ad-free but the only problem I have with that is the build-up will be advertisement central. I can see Sky turning into American TV and adding sponsored replays and random pop-ups like the world’s worst website. The screen will be cluttered.
There’s no denying that Sky do great coverage of other sports. In fact, they make Soccer Saturday entertaining and before you know it, you’ve wasted four or five hours away watching the word “GOAL” come up three times a minute. I don’t know who they’ll hire to do the coverage though because the BBC have the best presenters and commentators. Jake Humphrey is a great host who’s knowledgeable and very likeable; Martin Brundle is a great commentator who does very entertaining and informative features and grid walks and so on. The BBC dedicate themselves to HD coverage with their features, interviews and their professional explanations to ease you into the sport. I started watching in 2009 and thanks to their coverage, they’ve taught me all the necessary information and more. I feel like a mechanical engineer now.
Another annoying thing about this is that, come September, I’ll have to pay for my TV license but I don’t watch the BBC. In fact, I don’t watch anything on the BBC really and I don’t listen to the BBC radio stations and the only thing I really do is browse their sport and news websites. I’ll be paying £145 to read one article every month. It hardly seems worth it, especially on top of that £30 a month for Sky Sports which I might have to pay for myself. That’s £360 a year on top of £145 which means £505 a year just to watch the F1 and to read something every once in a while. Bargain…
It seems that Bernie Eccleston has gotten greedy. I’ve always liked him and his honesty but he honestly can’t believe that having the F1 on Sky will get more viewers. Everyone has the BBC and Sky Sports is a monthly luxury which less people do have. So, for Bernie to say that more people will watch it on Sky means he thinks Sky has more customers than a terrestrial channel? No, because people I know that don’t watch the F1 have watched some races this year (the Canadian GP mostly) and enjoyed it. Why? Because it was on the BBC. The BBC brought in a lot more viewers because it goes out to everyone who owns a TV. The BBC has brought the F1 back to dizzying heights and brought it to record highs after the monstrosity that was the ITV coverage. In fact, the BBC made me interested in watching the F1 because I had no real interest before hand.
I’m going to make a point to boycott Sky and I hope others join me in it. Every time the BBC show a race, I’ll purposefully watch that instead but they’ll still have my money if I sign up for Sky Sports again. Another possibility is that I wait for the extended highlights by the BBC of the Sky Sports race. That’s not as fun though. I’ll have to also avoid social networking sites and my brother. It doesn’t feel worth it. Boycott Sky may not be the best idea but if we banded together to rally behind the brilliant HD and terrestrial coverage of the BBC, we might make a difference. It’s just getting greedy now.
Yesterday (the 23rd of July), I took Haz’s three year-old sister to the park so she could go down slides and run around and be a happy little toddler. While we were there she made friends with a six year-old little girl called Louise. She ran around with her happily enough because Louise wanted to help little Jazmin get up and down from stuff because Jazmin is pretty small for her age. At one point, Jazmin ran to this fireman’s pole and asked me to come over and help her slide down it so I did. Then, Louise came running over and asked the same thing so I obliged and helped her slide down just to make sure she didn’t fall off or hurt herself.
This turned into a game for these two and they did it for a while. I noticed that the mother of this child - who made a snide comment under her breath when me and Haz walked past because we didn’t thank her for moving her pram out of the way of something that Jazmin was on (common sense to not put it there in the first place but whatever) - turned to watch me to and kept an eye on me. I suppose it’s understandable to be a little paranoid when the media is telling you all of this. Then, she called Louise over (I didn’t notice since I was helping Jazmin) and when she came back she said to me “my mammy says I have to do it on my own.” Her mother told her this because every good deed has to have an ulterior motive when, really, I just wanted to make sure no one hurt themselves. Pretty much, I was accused of having some other reason for wanting to help her down when all I did was say yes because she asked me to. I’m sure she would have said something had I said no so it’s a lose-lose situation.
It’s a shame to see that now everything you do is for some demented and twisted reason. Everything has to have a disgusting reason. There’s no being a nice person any more. This is true for a lot of men because statistics are against us really so the judgements are understandable in a sense. If Haz had been doing it, would she have said the same thing? Was it that she thought I was going to kidnap her little girl? Was it just because I didn’t say thank you for her moving her moveable object? I don’t care about her really, she seemed like a horrible person with her glares, her muttering and her general listlessness when it came to her children. But then again, am I any better because I’m making a snap judgement right there? She judged me so I judged her. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” but maybe we’re already blind to good deeds?
Paranoia seems to be infecting us all. I must admit that I’m very paranoid in public and I’m wary in case someone tries to steal my wallet and/or phone. In fact, most of the time I lock my doors in my car in case someone tries to steal my car from me. Knowledge seems to be empowering us but also scaring us senseless. It’s a mad world that we live in and this weekend has proved that. Is it possible that the film Surrogates might actually become true?
Everything is associated with something terrible. You help someone pick something up then you’re stealing from them. You’re nice to a child and you’re a paedophile or a kidnapper. You accidentally walk into someone and you’re picking a fight. You smile at someone and you’re a pervert. You offer to help in any way shape or form then you want someone back. This is the new-age of paranoia now. The bad thing is, we can all justify this paranoia because of what we hear about on the news or from acquaintances. It’s such a shame but it feels like a necessary precaution. In age where we’re all networked via the internet and connected to one another, it seems that you can’t make any real friendships from scratch on the street any more. It’s probably more socially conventional to start it online.
Then, starting it online has its drawbacks. Online relationships have always been threatened thanks to the perverted few that took the internet as a way to be a predator so we’re paranoid on there too. It just seems like all of our attempts are futile and that we may as well just all become hermits because the world is too dangerous. When it becomes technologically possible, I can see people actually becoming hermits and remaining home because it’s the safer option. Existence will be dull and there’ll be no real relationships; you won’t know the person behind the machine. It’s time to prepare for the anti-social era - it looks like its already begun.
The war on drugs and legalisation.
The idea of legalising weed has two sides and a fence separates them. Where people usually sit on the fence and ponder people usually have their mind set on this idea. They both stand there bickering with each other and it’s usually opposite generations. Young liberals versus old conservatives. It seems like they both have strong view points but both are misinformed or biased. I’m the sitting on that fence watching both argue restlessly with “facts” and experiences. Both are biased and stubborn but which one is right?
Technically both are right but more wrong than right. They both are ill-informed and pick and choose their beliefs when it comes to statistics. They both use their experiences in an act to win their argument over but who trusts someone who hasn’t done them and who trusts a person who could potentially be an addict?
Let’s put some weed myths to bed. They do not increase brain power and create brain cells. I have no idea where that idea came from, it’s just wrong though. Weed doesn’t cure cancer. In fact, it might even cause cancer but then again, what doesn’t these days? The whole idea that weed is natural therefore good for you is also wrong. There are plenty of natural things which aren’t good for you so why use that moot point? Now for people who claim weed has no side effects is just delusional. Weed has plenty of side effects which are mostly linked to stuff like mental illness but it doesn’t really cause it but more brings what lies dormant to the surface.
For example, I know a man who ended up being committed three times to a mental institution and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was because of prolonged drug use. One of the things he did was post rocks through peoples’ letterboxes and he took the inside of audio tapes and wrapped his room in them. Then, when let back home, he walked three miles to the same place and back about six times a day; even if it was raining.
That doesn’t mean that’ll happen to everyone though. The idea that everyone will become addicted is just more propaganda (dude, like, totally). Not everyone will become addicted, heartless and distant from reality. Those are the extreme views when you picture an addict but that’s not for all drug users. Usually just heroin because it’s physically addicting because the come down is so horrible.
The idea of drug prohibition doesn’t work. It just puts money in the hands of criminals instead of possibly maximising profits for the government. Outlawing things won’t stop them but switch mouths. Instead of us getting a load of money from taxing, we lose money on health care and free methadone for the people who claim they want to quit. We also lose lives which is a negative thing - even if the human life has now become a commodity. There are drug wars in Mexico, South America and even places in the middle-east. Afghanistan actually manufacture something like 95% - possibly more - of the world’s heroin. Which they use to fund terrorist organisations like al Qaeda. In fact, Viktor Ivanov, head of Russia’s Federal Service for Narcotics Control, claims that the heroin production in Afghanistan has grown 40 times since NATO agreed to intervene with military force to stop the production.
Let’s look like back to the 1920-1933 in the United States of America. The first thing I think of are black and white dark streets, suits and the Mafia. This is because the prohibition laws were enforced then. Nothing really changed though. In fact, it is believed that it was probably easier to find a drink and peoples’ alcohol consumption increased. All that really happened was now the government weren’t making money but losing money. When you think of no money coming in from it yet it still costing you, that’s a big loss. They continued for thirteen years though while people were murdered over control of territories.
The famous rise of one of the most infamous crime lords, Al Capone. Also, a massive chase between Al Capone and Eliot Ness and his team of The Untouchables. They chased down Al Capone to bring down his empire. An empire which amassed to $3.6bn in 1926. No, that’s not a conversion to what it would be worth now. He earned $3.6bn in 1926. When comparing that to now it would equal roughly $544bn using the relative share of GDP on the website http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/. Why are we doing that with more than one product? We’re handing over money and lives.
I know people only really think about legalising cannabis because it’s the most used drug and one of the most safe ones. What’s the point in making all drugs illegal? So far, the tax that isn’t gained from legalising drugs pays medical bills, methadone bills, vandalism bills, prison bills and pays people to “clean up the streets”. You’ll never clean up the streets. Especially when the majority of the people who are trying to clean up the streets are corrupt and are gaining money from drugs.
If we allowed drugs we could apply the same amount of tax that we do to alcohol, cigarettes and fuel. Imagine a new 70% profit coming from cannabis alone. We’d earn a load so we could give more money to the NHS and the education system meaning that the university wouldn’t need a £9000 tuition fee. Then we’d spend less on our overcrowded prisons. That’s just the profit idea. The fact that it won’t be illegal means there’ll be no criminals supplying people. There’ll be shops and cafés opening meaning a slight economic boom and possibly more jobs. That’s just cannabis.
We could legalise it all. Although, I think heroin is a bad idea but at least the government will be profiting from the stupidity of people who are willing to die for a cheap fix. The tax on their drugs would pay for their healthcare and more so what’s not to like? It’s not only about the profit but it’s more about the negative things that prohibition creates. I don’t understand why the government are anti-choice because, effectively, they chose to not let us to have our own choices. They withhold information from us and don’t give evidence out over such pointless things. Why create ignorance? I’m not thinking it’s an entire conspiracy but what I mean is that it’s true that they withhold things which shouldn’t. Classified military stuff such as weapons development and tactics are understandable but they never clear anything up with hard evidence.
Therefore it boils down to something so simple. There’s misleading information being thrown around, people losing their mind over addiction because of dealers putting harmful chemicals in and people dying over the supplying of these drugs. It should come down to something simpler. Choice. They should give us a the choice to potentially wreck our own lives because if we don’t even control the stuff that we knowingly put into our own body then what control do we really have? It’ll stop criminals, it’ll stop deaths of innocent people who are slain during drug war shoot-outs and it’ll give us money. So tell me again, why are they illegal?
In an age where the media is everywhere comes control of the media. We aren’t as bad as China and Korea’s censorship rules but it’s a slippery slope. Censorship is a concept I don’t fully understand (note: by understand I mean I don’t understand the reasoning behind why things should be censored, the reasons seem illogical to me) and far from agree with. Why censor anything? Censorship never existed before and never hindered progress but because it can be seen everywhere, does it mean it should be stopped? No, not really.
In the past, we were violent and sexual. In other words, we were natural. Now, we’ve developed into unnatural, controlling, conscience beings who want to live in sheltered existences, denying any wrong doing in the world. This is unnatural and it won’t help, it’ll hinder progress. We’d become naive, curious and unknown to the consequences. It feels like that would only cause more problems rather than solve them.
Lately, I’ve been revisiting a classic game which may be one of the best games ever - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. There’s something enjoyable about going around with guns, driving recklessly and BMX-ing around cities. I enjoy that, does that mean I’m going to go that outside of the game? No. Do you know why? Because I have morals, just like 99.9999999999999999999% of all gamers. We are not all psychos who search out for violence and strive for sadistic agony of others.
For example, blaming games on murders, rape and all other bad things in our world is like blaming a salad bar for obesity. All of these things have existed before hand and they’ll, sadly, continue to exist forever. Stopping games will not stop these tragedies. No matter how much you want them to stop and you want to pin the blame on something, you can’t. It’s natural and the people who commit murders lately are actually unnatural as they usually have some mental problems. Whether it’s something as simple as a chemical imbalance or a gland which doesn’t release the endorphins which make us feel guilt and remorse - or something similar, I can’t really remember and I don’t have the literature at hand so take this with a pinch of salt.
There’s an infamous serial killer who had a - pardon the pun - killer childhood. Richard Ramirez, also known as “The Nightstalker”, was beaten by his father, sexually abused by his teacher, saw photos from his “hero” uncle which were his rape and murder victims out in Vietnam (he also took a piece of them as a “trophy” and showed Richard Ramirez these as a child) and also witnessed this same uncle murder his wife. Richard Ramirez was only a child as he saw this, a pre-teen. By the time he was thirteen, he spent nights at cemeteries and looked to evil in the form of Satan. That’s what made him a brutal murderer.
Then there’s the ideal that we’re “sexualising” children when I don’t see how we can be. The media has stayed the same. For example, the “Carry On…” films were made from 1958 to 1978. They made rude and crude jokes, insinuated a lot of sexual things and had thin women running around in underwear. What’s so different now? We actually have certificates and “do not broadcast until 9” now so how can we be sexualising children now and not then? That’s why I do not understand the idea that children are more at risk now than then.
Then there are the protesting parents. The parents who protest because their child turned onto Scrubs instead of some Disney programme and parade around trying to stop “filth” and “smut” from polluting kids. If they put half as much effort into parenting as they do into protesting and stopping everything bar Elmo, Blue’s Clues and Dora the Explorer, they’d actually be good parents and would stop these atrocities from happening. But no, they’d rather ruin it for everyone by making sure that there’s nothing “inappropriate” on television. We’ll have nothing left but white screens and then they’ll be protested against for not being racially diverse and other odd and random things. You can’t please these people.
I believe in labels and warnings. When you click the information button on your remote and there are warnings about sexual content, swearing and so on. I agree with that because then the parent has the knowledge to pick and choose what their children watch. I do not agree with the fact that McDonald’s not having adverts because parents blame it on their kids being obese. No, it’s not McDonald’s fault. It’s your fault for not being a good parent and saying yes to their every demand. Instead of hindering everyone’s demands, how about you grow a pair and stop ruining the world for the rest of us because you can’t say no to your child without some hassle. Your causing me a lot of hassle by being so irresponsible.
Let’s move onto the Glenn Beck of censorship, Jack Thompson. For those who don’t know Jack Thompson, he is a disbarred attorney who attempted to sue record labels, game distributors, retailers and so on for vast amounts of money for pedalling filth. He’s famous for attempting to get N.W.A.’s albums “Straight Outta’ Compton” and “Efil4zaggin” banned and even more famous for disagreeing with most Rockstar Games outputs like the Grand Theft Auto series, Manhunt and Bully. This is the man who has now been banned from the Florida Bar association for making outrageous claims.
Jack Thompson is a wannabe celebrity, he craves attention and that could be from the attention starved childhood that he possibly had. See, maybe he blames the media instead of blaming his parents because he feels they wouldn’t ignore him unless it was for something else. Or maybe his parents sheltered him from a real childhood. Who knows? All I know is that he tries very hard to get in the public eye with his activism by making outrageous lawsuits which he would never win. He makes claims like a $40m lawsuit against Facebook because it didn’t remove every post insulting him. To be fair, that would take a lot of effort considering most people don’t agree with him and they shouldn’t.
People are always quick to blame the games, the music, the films, the magazines and every other outlet but never quick enough to blame the actual parents or the guilty person. People tried to ban Grand Theft Auto because it, allegedly, taught a six year old boy how to drive but they don’t blame the parent who gave this six year old an eighteen certified game. They blame Counter-Strike: Source for school shootings in Germany, claiming it taught them how to shoot a gun instead of blaming the schools for not stepping in and stopping the child’s bullying and harassment. People blame other people for their own mistakes because they’d rather blame a higher power than realise their own short-comings. Personally, I’d love to individually dump all of their short-comings on them so they realise that the real problems and the real mistakes stem from them.
Everything is getting censored. This isn’t fair. There’s no TV channel, no radio station, no book, no magazine, no films which don’t have to adhere to strict guidelines making them appropriate for audiences. Life isn’t censored so why should the media? The media should be a side part of life, it has become this, a necessity for us so why censor the media when you can’t censor real life? There should be no one accountable for these bad actions bar the people who committed them and the people who failed to stop their children from doing such things. It’s not our fault your children are easily influenced. Try being a parent for once.
The latest in the possible censorship guidelines is for no “sexual dancing” on things such as X-Factor and so on. Let’s take a trip back to the ’80s where Madonna sang Like a Virgin or to the gyrating women in leotards in the past. They weren’t banned but now they should be banned? “It’s a family show, this isn’t fair.” It isn’t fair that you’d rather hinder the pleasure of the majority of viewers so your child can watch auto-tuned tripe? Makes sense that WE should bend to YOUR children. If you don’t like what your child is seeing, don’t let them see it. It’s a simple concept which I’m incessantly chanting here and that is to be a good parent and instead of changing how we view things, stop your children from viewing things.
Another thing which possibly in the censor pipeline is the ban of homosexual kissing and erotic homosexual scenes in TV programmes. Now that is plain homophobic and wrong in terms of equality. Heterosexual kisses and erotic scenes are not banned but homosexual ones are? This has probably stemmed from the lesbian storyline in Coronation Street which has been deemed inappropriate. In fact, a disgusting 300,000 complained about the first lesbian kiss scene. It’s good to see that homophobia and bigotry is still here today. They claimed it “glamorised lesbianism”. Because of that one kiss your daughters will be lesbians and men will become gay as well because they saw it happen in a TV show and the human race will stop procreating and no longer exist. No, that’s NOT what will happen you pea-brained, moronic, insensitive bigots. Although, at this rate, I think it will be the best thing to happen to this cesspool.
Apparently, real things happening in the media shouldn’t be allowed. Guess what? These things happen. Man up and start to face reality and stop sheltering everyone from real things. Being naive is not a good thing. We should all have the power of knowledge and the standard moral fibre to know that killing a prostitute after having sex with her to get your money back is very wrong. If you don’t, check yourself into a mental asylum. Games are an escape, that is their real purpose. The media as a whole is a form of artistic escapism based on possible real events. They’re all hypothetical. Some we’d like to explore, some we’d gladly like to avoid. Either way, we should know of these things otherwise curiosity kills the cat.
AV, the monarchy and democracy.
It’s been a while since I’ve written something political and opinionated but this twigged an interest. A pretty broad array of topics but they are all linked. The May 5th referendum is about changing our voting system. We’re currently using the First Past the Post (FPTP) system and the referendum wants us to change it to the alternate vote (AV) system. Now, in my opinion, we should all vote yes on this referendum. Not because the AV system is much better and fairer - which it is - but simply because the FPTP system is undemocratic and the “No to AV” campaign has been using misleading information.
The new AV system is pretty simple. Instead of just choosing one party to abide by you pick a preferential order by numbering the boxes 1, 2, 3 and so on. The No campaign have been saying that this system is too complicated and would make unfair results where people in third place would get into power. That is wrong. The idea that the person in third place - or lower down - will get into power makes no sense, it lacks logic. Either way, if the person in third did get into power it would still be fair thanks to the preferential order of voting. So explain to me, morons who like to twist the words and lie to get what they want, how is that unfair? Also, using a picture of five runners to explain to me that the person who’s about to collapse will win the race is even more moronic.
Let’s carry on with the tripe that’s being pedalled by the prolific No campaigners. They keep incessantly telling me how the AV system is going to cost £250m. Let’s dispel this blatant lie. First of all, the referendum itself is going to cost £91m which changes that £250m to £159m already. Therefore, I’ve already proven that it is a lie pushed to you for their own personal gain. Now, another £130m is apparently on electronic vote counting machines. They are not being bought for AV and they aren’t needed for AV so I think it’ll be a good ol’ ballot paper and hard work to count. That is it. I believe that is what is going to happen. Either way, if they did buy those machines it would be for future elections as well and not just for this voting system. That’s another £130m gone from their outlandish £250m figure leaving us with £29m left. Now, yes, that £29m will be spent on informing people how to use the AV system which is quite insulting. It’s simple, you pick preferences and - as I’ve heard so far - you pick at least three but you can pick as many as you like.
It will create more coalitions but don’t judge the current coalition; it’s just a Tory government pretending to be a coalition. Coalitions work. Fact. You don’t even need to leave Europe to see that. If you’re Welsh (like me) you won’t even have to look further than our Welsh assembly. Oddly, it works. A coalition between Labour and Plaid Cymru has had no problems and I’d say the Welsh assembly is a pretty successful, middle-left government. But, there are plenty of other successful coalition governments which compromise and challenge each other and really end up making things better - a bit better than usual anyway.
This voting system is better than the current FPTP but is by no means the best voting system. This is just a step in the right direction. A friend of mine described it as a sideways step to move forward but I’d say it’s a bit more diagonal as it is slightly positively progressive. It may not be the best reason to vote yes but it makes more sense than to say no. The no campaign - ran mostly by traditionalists and right-winged Tories masquerading as liberals (they wear Nick Clegg masks in their demonstrations to prove that this is a negative thing) - have said that the BNP will have more power and more seats if the AV system were to come in. If that’s true then why are the BNP against this voting system?
Even though we’re voting for a different voting system to be more “democratic”, I find that hard to believe. Britain is one of the biggest hypocrisies. We preach democracy, we impose democracy, we shed blood over the name of democracy yet we technically don’t have one. We, instead, have a monarchy. You may not think that the monarchy do that much bar cut red ribbons and make boring speeches written by pretentious idiots, but they do. Before each law is passed, it needs “royal assent”. That means the queen has every right to not sign it and not create the law. Rarely do the monarchy say no but it still leads questions as to why an unelected person still gets the final decision.
It has it’s positives and negatives. For example, the queen said that she will not ask the BNP to govern the country even if they win the election. That makes me happy knowing that those idiots won’t get into power but it’s still not democratic. Practice what you preach, to use a cliché. We’re over in Libya fighting to give them democracy and stop the innocent people being slaughtered and raped yet we don’t have one. There’s more than a hint of hypocrisy in our policies.
Now that leads to the royal wedding. At first I was a little angered that our tax money was paying for a wedding of two people. There are massive cuts which are unnecessary but apparently a wedding isn’t wasteful - was my first thought. Two random people who fell for each other and decided they wanted to spend eternity together. Now, by thinking about it, I regret my dislike of the royal wedding. I won’t take a part and it won’t really effect me but the aftermath will. They’ve estimated that 2bn people will be watching the royal wedding. TWO. BILLION. That’s a lot of people and a niche so that we can advertise in between, get people to pay expensive television rights and pretty much cash-in on the whole idea.
We may have spent between £20m-£40m (hard to find definitive numbers oddly) of our money on it but we’re going to make so much back. From the TV licenses alone we’ll probably make about £200m (a rough estimate considering 150 different TV channels will be broadcasting it) and then there’s the memorabilia, the advertisements, the rental space, the tourists and so on. Say goodbye to the recession since we just made a tonne of money back. You know what that SHOULD mean? George Osborne should stop cutting but of course that won’t happen. He’ll move it around instead and make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and start dying out. That’s always been his plan and always will be.
To sum up in a semi-brief manner. You should all vote yes to AV. It may cost a little bit but it’s a step in the right direction. In my opinion, we should all vote for our national and local area and then tally the votes that way. That’s the fairest way. Each vote counts and the highest percentage gets into power. That way, Labour would have won a lot more elections. The monarchy makes this country undemocratic and hypocritical but I suppose they do no real harm since they’re like a cash-cow with gold (oil is probably more lucrative now) instead of milk. Royal wedding is a good thing for this country since we’ll make a bomb off other people’s interest in something so pointless. Result.
Why so extreme?
The ideas of radicals is a hard one to comprehend. There are extremists of all faith, nationalities and ideals but they are hardly noticed. The world is selective. Selective with prejudices, stereotypes, religions and, also, extremists. What constitutes an extreme view or an extreme reaction? There are the obvious cases but what about the forgotten, well, ignored ones.
The most obvious one is the view on Muslims and the Islam faith. Let’s clear up some things. Most commonly the interpretation of Jihad. The word Jihad means struggle, whether they are faith struggles, Muslim society or the misinterpreted struggle to defend Islam. The fact that extremists claim that the word of Allah says to attack all who impose Islam as an act of Jihad is a misinterpretation but more than likely a lie imposed to brain wash. People like Al Qaeda make money from brainwashing and doing these things. Act of religion? It’s more an act of greed, hypocritically. Jihad forbids war unless ALL rules are broken, humanitarian rules mostly and they are not the reason for terrorist attacks.
The fact that all extremists are now linked with Muslims is horrendously ignorant. Another irritation is that everyone from the middle-east wears a turban when Sikhs wear the turbans. They have suffered just as much as Muslims thanks to the extremists and terrorists and suffered hate crimes for nothing. So have Muslims. How can you correct that with such terrible media around? For example, The Sun, The News of the World, Daily Express and other terrible papers. They’d rather raise panic and racism to sell papers than give facts. There are extremists of every single viewpoint, they are the extreme thought of the idea but they’re never brought up.
I was told to - when deciding on what to write - to bring up the lesser acknowledged and more ignored extreme groups. Catalonians are extreme too. I know they’re not ignored entirely but they aren’t exactly slandered or hated. There is a civil war in Spain which has just calmed down recently. When I went to Salou in Spain, there were loads of posters up about anti-Spanish government and freeing Catalonia. There was even a demonstration in Barcelona which wasn’t violent, fortunately. There have been plenty of violent demonstrations though yet they are ignored. There are extremists there who deem violence a necessity. They hinder their cause with these demonstrations, becoming the villain. Are they ever defined as extremists? Are the Catalonians stereotyped as terrorists because of this?
Let’s move on to the most horrendous of extremists. The highly ignored Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is the most disgusting excuse of “religion” ever. I’m not claiming to be all knowledgeable on this matter since I was educated by Louis Theroux on the matter but they are an atrocity. They picket funerals claiming the - now deceased - are “burning in hell” for their “FAG sins”, how lovely. No one ever associates this church with Christianity though so why is it acceptable to do it to other faiths? Is it because they’re not as ignorant on Christianity? No slander or libel behind it? Their media attention - in the UK - is few and far between and they’re simply dismissed as lunatics or as a hate group. Muslims don’t get the courtesy of not being wrongly labelled.
These people actually thank their God for the atrocity of 9/11, the war in Iraq which kills “non-believers” and kills their own troops and believe in anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and are against anything and everything. They celebrate the deaths of celebrities as they’re all fags. They claim that “the only true Nazis in this world are fags.” Yet they are simply ignored and dismissed from Christianity and Christians are never stereotyped as these people.
What about the people who parade the streets picketing and claiming we’re all going to go to Hell? We ignore those too. I don’t understand the selective prejudice of the world. Most faiths are stereotyped but Christians have the most calm and “neutral” stereotype next to Buddhists. I don’t understand this when they have such an aggressive faith which finds the need to shove their religion down your throat until you’re spewing up Bible verses. Christians even ignore the Old Testament even though it’s the basis of their faith and mock Judaism for their views when they’re actually based on that entire religion. Ignorance is so irritating and it really disappoints me.
What about unnecessary nationalism? Many demonstrations have turned violent and I point you towards the KKK which is based upon Christian views. White supremacists who attack all of those against their views in their neo-Nazi views of racism, xenophobia and anti-immigration. They’re unnecessarily patriotic and are, quite simply, terrorists. They are Christian terrorists, a hate group who attack innocent people who aren’t Christians or who aren’t white. Famous for their attacks on Hispanic and African-American people. They terrorised people by applying fear and violence to these poor people but Christians aren’t all stereotyped as KKK members, are they?
I know I’m sounding like a broken record now, reiterating the same point and mostly about Christianity but it’s true. The world ignores such things but when forty-three Muslims burned a poppy on remembrance day, they condemned an entire religion as disrespectful and voiced their hatred by implying that we deport all Muslims and, in some extreme cases, murder them. Hitler style ethnic cleansing was their suggestion because of forty-three extremists, seems fair. Now I’ll start a hate group about everyone religious because of the “holy” wars which have plagued our lives. The Gaza strip, Irish civil war, WW2 and many other religious-bred wars. Apparently, a world without ignorance is a pipe-dream which will never happen. No matter how hard I try, I’m not going to change the world and I’m not going to stop this. As long as I change an opinion of one person or open the eyes to the intolerance of others, I’ll be happy. Then again, will anyone who has these view points ever read anything which isn’t propaganda?