Tuesday, 21 December 2010

A Book called Hypocrisy

Okay, so I read that Afshan Azad, a rather stunning Muslim actress who played Padma Patil in the Harry Potter series, was threatened and attacked by her family for dating a non-Muslim. “Oh shit, not another one.”
There seems to be a misconception, spread by the media, that any Muslim girl who exceeds the boundaries of the norm is liable to be beaten, threatened, abused etc. It seems almost cause and effect, an inevitable course of perverted justice. And, as the article was testament too, some who do step outside these boundaries do receive horrific reproaches from their peers. But there is an element of hypocrisy in these stories, and a sweeping generalisation that helps nobody.
I hope my readers realise that what is reported in the news is just snap shots, the biggest stories. A Muslim family accepting a Hindu into their house is no more likely to make the news than a Christian allowing a Buddhist in. Now a Christian family beating up said Buddhist and kicking him out, that would make the news, and the perpetrators would no doubt be chastised for going against Christian ideals and be sent to church for rehabilitation (hopefully after prison). But when Muslim families do similar acts, the way the piece is written will be different. These articles always give a sense of normality; “Look what this religion does on a regular basis”.
They also give a sense that domestic violence is somehow restricted to certain religions, with the occasional chav and drunkard thrown in for variety. But it’s not. When people say they did things because of the Bible, or the Koran, what they are giving is an excuse for their actions, not a reason. Let’s take the bible, and no I’m not about to go off on an anti-Bible rant. Taken out of context, any passage in the bible could be used to justify an action. Let me rip Leviticus 3:16 out of context. “all the fat is the LORD's. 17: It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” Someone’s eating fat, that’s against the Lord! Etc etc. But do you see random Christians and Jews chastising people for eating fat? You don’t. Probably because the rest of the chapter explains why you shouldn’t or that this is for a special occasion. It’s out of context for a reason.
It’s the same with anything really. Take part of the Queen’s Speech out of context and you could go rob a store with an excuse. Take the Lotus Sutra and you could go slaughter a herd (I remember one, misunderstanding, Christian saying “why don’t you just kill them so they can be reincarnated quicker?). Take the Koran and you have an adequate excuse to beat your daughter. Now I don’t buy into this “For good people to do bad things, it takes religion” (Steven Weinburg). One it makes the assumption that people are wholly good, which we are not. I’d say I am a good person; I don’t harm anyone intentionally, I give to charity, I’ve never stolen (well , a crisp or two). Yet I know that I have exploited people, that occasionally my tongue runs away with me and I hurt someone, I’ve even accidentally given someone a limp for a week (it was a fluke, I promise). I’m not a bad person, but nor am I good. And the bad things I did were not the produce of religion, but of circumstance and mistakes. My point? The will to do things is already there. Afhshan Azad’s father and brother may have used religion as an excuse, even to themselves, to justify their actions, but to perform them in the first place the will must be there. That will may have been doctored by their upbringing, but nature vs nurture is not the point of this.
What I am saying, in my characteristically roundabout way, is that the media’s generalisation of every Muslim family as being lead by an iron fisted man who will crush any who stray is unrealistic and dangerous. And let us not forget that, 60 years ago, that iron fist would have belonged to white, Christian man, who would not let his daughter see a black man, and get his son interned for being gay. I’m no fan of Islam, and I think we should take action whenever these events of religious punishment occur, but saying they are all corrupt does not help, and means we are ignoring our own past.

Friday, 17 September 2010

The Pope is Back in Town

So Pope Benedict XVI has decided to grace our little third world island with his presence. First port of call was Scotland, having left one of his advisors behind already, and to the rallying calls of Scottish Catholics. He waved to a thronging, if not quite sell out, crowd, blessed babies and generally looked pretty holy in his Popemobile.
If you want protests and arguments against his visit, they are not hard to find. Facebook (though hardly the most reliable source) is literally seething with insults and hate. The protest through London, against the Pope’s views on gays, women, condoms and aids should also be pretty interesting.
Rather than have a good old rant, which would be far too obvious, I’ve decided to do a quick little blog on my response to his speech. After deciphering his German accent and a tendency to mumble (and assorted family members talking over the television) I managed to hear a few words he said. I’ve also had a little read around, perusing the newspapers and websites. In doing so I’ve managed to piece together what he said, and above all I simply found my own response pretty amusing. When he warns us of a society becoming more secular, or the "increasing marginalization" of Christianity1 , I asked him (or, more accurately, the television) “and what’s so bad about that?”. Not that I was in the remotest sense alone in this sentiment, which was probably echoed by secularists, agnostics, atheists and others across the country. Britain wouldn’t have become a secularist society, where religion is accounted for less and the growing sense of equality, if we hadn’t wanted it. Social change requires the co-operation of the people, because it is the people who make it happen in the first place. I’m damn proud of our country, and its secularist temperament. If people wish to worship God, or Allah or Vishnu or Thor (I know a few) then they are still allowed to do so. The difference is it has no negative effect on society as whole. The law is not biased towards one group, like it is in Brazil, or against others. In many ways Britain is actually encouraging all that is good about religion. Help groups, community projects, charity fundraisers are still allowed and encouraged. It’s not perfect, not by far, but it’s worlds apart from the theocratic tyranny in Iran, and the god-twisted laws elsewhere on our little blue rock.
Now is the point where I could easily descend into some anti-pope, anti-catholic rant, but I shall restrain. For one, many of my friends are Catholics, and some of the best people you’ll ever meet. And even some of them are opposed to what the Pope has to say. They respect gay rights, treat women equally (the occasional sexist joke may enter, but none said with conviction or hate) and a few even despise this visit in its entirety. I hope when people turn their anger towards the Pope, they don’t carry it on onto moderate, progressive and genuinely good Catholics such as them.

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pope-warns-of-increasing-marginalisation-of-christianity-2082388.html

Friday, 13 August 2010

Intelligently Dumb

Walking out of Inception, a film with enough stars lauded upon it to start its own galaxy, I reflected that there was something wrong with the film. When you have a film that is steeped in philosophical questions, dream worlds, dream levels, subconscious probing and enough mind games to keep a psychology student engrossed for weeks, it seems odd to think it rather dumb.
In honesty I don’t know why I have associated ‘dumb’ with what I have picked up in the film. I could easily swap in ‘the same as every other action film’. Because if you removed the headache inducing dream worlds, and rely more on the acting and performance, you find a very generic film. Why? Guns. Guns make it Dumb.
It appears that as soon guns are introduced into a film, the veneer of realism is removed. Some do pull it off realistically; Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, (i.e War films, and even then some fall short of the mark, such as Windtalkers). But Inception fell into the trap when they introduced guns, bullets and thin metal.
So real world part of the film. DiCaprio is running along a narrow alley, pursued by agents wielding automatic pistols. If either of them had been to any shooting academy other than the one reserved for Imperial Storm Troopers, the film would have been cut dramatically short by DiCaprio’s sudden death or incapacitation (and short trip back to America).
Dream Level 1. This is the one that got me more than most. The taxi, stationary, is set upon by four or five gunmen with automatic rifles, who whole heartedly open fire on the easy target. How many bullet wounds? One. Worse than that, the thin steel that makes up a taxi’s body wouldn’t take a shot from a pistol, let alone five happy gunmen. Yet all we see is small dents peppering the body. The same is repeated later, with the van. Stationary target, full automatic, no casualties.
I won’t bore you any more with recollections of faults in the other levels. Actually I think dream level 2 was done impressively well. Perhaps testament to what I have been saying, there is only one pistol in those scenes where Arthur is battling with Robert’s subconscious in zero gravity. And that is quickly lost and rarely fired.
What annoys me is that I think films like this would be considerably more enjoyable is the ‘gunplay’ was more realistic. Even if it means less shells on the floor, and less loud noises. It would immerse you into the film more, instead of simply looking, laughing and lamenting “that would never happen!” Inception is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a bad film. It is thought provoking, emotionally grabbing and well acted. But that only makes me wish, even more, that Nolan had taken the time to sit back and think how exactly guns work. Because for all the twisting buildings, zero-g fights and plain weirdness of Inception, the only thing I found unrealistic were the gunfights.

Monday, 2 August 2010

Bludgeoning through Bureaucracy

(Apologies for the lateness of this blog, and my recent inactivity. I simply hadn't had something inspiring to write about)

“You can’t bludgeon your way through Bureaucracy, Commander Sheppard”
“I can bludgeon pretty hard”
Mass Effect

Now I don’t like David Cameron. For starters, he is a Conservative, a political ideology I am opposed to. I don’t like his plans for the economy (especially as my home town is the guinea pig for his ‘Big Society’ plans) and I just generally find him to fit the bill of the slimy, un-trustworthy politician. Yet I find myself developing a grudging respect for the man, thanks to his actions in India and Turkey.
In-case you hadn’t noticed, or are simply far enough detached from the frivolities of teenagers to do so, the above quote is from a game. It might seem odd to insert a quote from such a media, but I find it reflects adequately what Mr Cameron has decided to do (as well as being a line that always makes me smile). Whereas Labour decided to side step any issue, or turn a blind eye for fear of losing an ally, Cameron has simply gone in with a cudgel and told them what he thinks. Because if Pakistan is double dealing, they are as much a detriment to our plans (a term used in its widest sense when you consider how much of a mess they are) in Afghanistan as they are an aid. A country cannot be an ally and an enemy at the same time, and Cameron has made it clear he will not sidestep the situation like his predecessors.
And let us not forget that it was a combined effort of many countries, including Britain, that allowed Israel to come into sovereignty in the first place (and their excellent military). I find myself agreeing with our Prime Minister that their actions have turned the Gaza Strip into a prison camp. The shooting of innocent Turks on a humanitarian mission a few months ago was a sign that Israel does not wish for aid to enter.
What also drew my attention was the reaction of the press. We often cry out for our politicians to finally be honest, but then when one of them decides to actually be so, the media doubt that too. “Is honesty the best, foreign, policy” is a little quote that has stuck in my mind. Well maybe it is my more brutish attitude towards politics, but yes. If you give countries a long leash, they will only stretch it. Maybe the Prime Minister’s early forays into honesty signals a turning point, where we start to real this leash in and finally tell some of these countries where they can stick their own foreign policy.

Tuesday, 29 June 2010

The Meaning of Life

One of the great philosophical pursuits is to determine what is the purpose of our short time on this earth is. That is, what is the meaning of life? You could even argue that everything stems from this question; science, society, culture, religion, all descendants of the question ‘Why am I here’.
After all, questioning is what makes us human. Blind obedience, blissful ignorance, ignoring reason, humanity as a whole is incapable of it. Yes, there are people who are completely in ignorance of everything, who obey blindly and do not pursue reason or discovery, but for every one of them there is another human being who will ask ‘why?’
I will ask the why. Why do we want a meaning to our lives? If we have a meaning, we have a purpose, and if we have a purpose we have an objective. A vacuum cleaner has a meaning to its existence, and we use this meaning to clean up around the house. Its purpose it to clean, its objective is a dust free house. But what if we have a similar meaning, purpose, objective as this common piece of machinery? How depressing would that be?
To simplify things, let us say that the meaning of life is to climb Mount Everest. It is a suitably grand and difficult purpose, so let us use it as an example.
To begin with, climbing Mount Everest is no small thing. First you have to train, you have to prepare. You know your goal, the meaning to your life, and so you spend the first 15 years of your life growing up whilst your parents train you to fulfil the meaning of your life. You learn how to hike, how to survive.
Then there is the challenge of climbing it. Suitably difficult for it to be the meaning of your life. It takes a few days or weeks of hardship, and then you reach the summit. You have reached the meaning of life, you have fulfilled your purpose as a living, breathing, sentient organism of planet Earth. Well done.
The question is, now what do you do? The meaning of life has been fulfilled. Do you commit ritual suicide at the summit, knowing that you have given meaning to your life, that you have fulfilled its purpose? After all, all your life up to this moment has been training to fulfil the meaning of life, so what’s the point after you have done it? Do you then climb down from the mountain, knowing that your life is fulfilled, only now you have no other objective. You have so single-mindedly trained to fulfil your life, after you have there is nothing left to do, no point or purpose.
Except, of course, of what you make for yourself.
This is where the meaning of life becomes a depressing, not an enlightening, concept. Because, after you have completed the meaning of life, you now have to find a new one. You are complete, but your continued existence is now pointless unless you make one.
So why not cut the crap and just start your life pointless? Instead of finding another purpose after you have scaled Mount Everest, why don’t you start your life without a purpose and then give yourself one. Sure it will take some time, but it will be worth it.
Of course some may say the meaning of life is made evident after you die, perhaps in the grace (or entrapment) of some deity, or even that life is merely in preparation for the next one. These are topics for another time, but from earlier blogs of mine you can possibly see where my opinion lies on said matters.

And no. The meaning of life is not 42.

Saturday, 1 May 2010

Political Parrying

Unless you have been living in a cave for the past few months, living only off accumulated slime and the occasional insect, you could hardly have not noticed the upcoming election. In the wake of an expenses scandal, a recession, and a new wave of military controversies, parliament has been dissolved and the leaders of the three main parties have decided to slog it out on a broadcasted TV show.
This is what has interested me most about this election. For one who cannot vote, a full blown manifesto (of at least a hundred pages each) from each party is a considerable read. I also read the Mirror, an unashamedly Labour newspaper, and so my view on things tends to skew to an anti-Conservative stance. The Leaders Debate allowed me to see the at least the leaders of the parties in the flesh, seeing how they react without a planned speech or an auto cue. It was there to help me make up my mind for the person I would vote for if I could (and considering that many of the plans affect my age group, why can’t I?)
First we have Gordon Brown, who I’ve always viewed as the ‘honest scot’. Whereas Clegg and Cameron are the typical, slick politicians, Brown is haggard, speaks with an old Scottish accent and has a disability. People (and posters) which pin the blame of the recession on him are unjustified; it was a worldwide recession. He did a very good job in helping us recover. But in the Leader’s Debates my trust in him has eroded slowly. For one, he and Cameron seem to engage in political mudslinging at every chance, and he seems ever more to be less the ‘honest scot’, and more a ‘bumbling old man’. It is perhaps too harsh on the man who managed to drag us out of a recession to base my decision on a field that he himself admits he is bad at; Public Relations.
Then we have Cameron, the slick, public relations maestro. They managed rough up his Eton voice so he was more relatable, even messed up his hair a little. And you’ve got to give to him; the man can talk. The first debate he seemed nervous and very much behind both Clegg and Brown. But he managed to pick it up, and by the final one on the BBC he gave a very convincing show. He also managed to keep his policies stable, and parry most insults thrown at him by Brown over the three debates. He even managed to turn Brown’s genuine concerns into a ‘scare mongering’ slur. The problem was that although his policies remained constant, they are not really to my liking. For one, he doesn’t want to reform our embarrassing political system. A 10% slash on the House of Lords is still less than Labour’s 50% slash. Mostly because Conservatives will always have ties with Hereditary peers, which constitute a large number of the House of Lords, but also because of the Conservatives opposition to a reform. The clue is in the party name, and Cameron is having to bend to the will of the public whilst still keeping his ‘old chums’ happy.
Nick Clegg reigned supreme in the first election, proving that the Liberal Democrats are not a minority party scrapping at the heels of Labour and Conservatives, but a genuine opponent. Perhaps it was underdog syndrome, but he simply crushed the other two first time round. He also managed to fend off a Tory inspired newspaper libel attack, and clarify in the second debate ‘that it is all lies’. His performance seemed to go downhill, and some of his policies magically changed part way through. That said, he seems to know a proper way to handle immigration (by using something that has been proven to work) and abolition of university fees; that speaks for itself considering that I am 16 years old and looking to such a future. His performance was still good regardless, even if his attention changed slightly from policies to political mudslinging, which made him harder to take seriously. That said, he undercut the other two very well.
So where does my non-existent vote go? The Conservatives have a new face, but behind it the party member remain Thatcherites and Etonians. George Osbourne is also impossible to see as a responsible chancellor, being beaten by Vince Cable during the Chancellors debate. The Chancellor is as much an important part of a party as the prime minister, and he undermines Cameron’s valiant attempts to reform the Tories.
The main problem with Labour is that for all they promise, they’ve had 13 years to do it. Admittedly Gordon Brown has only had leadership for two of them, but like the Conservatives, it’s as much about the party behind him as it is about the leader. They haven’t changed so much, so can we really trust them to change anything?
So that leaves the Liberal Democrats (unless you want to waste a vote on the Greens, or encourage race hate with the BNP or UKIP). Clegg is a solid leader, who can speak confidently and intelligently. His policies appeal to a teenager such as myself, and Vince Cable seems more than able to take the position of Chancellor. My only fear is their sketchy plans for Trident. Leading the way in nuclear disarmament is necessary, but it is important to leave enough for a useful nuclear deterrent. I would vote for Clegg, but I sure hope he knows what he is doing in regards to Trident.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

The Evolution and Destruction of the 'Fact'

An earlier debate I had led to the human understanding of eyesight. It is now an established fact that we see objects because light travels from a light source, in waves, reflects off the object to be picked up by our retinas, which then turn it into a code for our brain. However, this ‘fact’ has not been around forever.

Naturally, the first recorded theorising over how the eyes worked was in ancient Greece. Although there were different schools of thought, (notably the emission theory and the intromission theory) the established ‘fact’ was that the eye had some kind of inner light source, that allowed it to interact with objects. They also believed that sight was done entirely in the eye, not in the brain.

Fast forward a thousand or so years and al-Haytham is making better stabs at the truth. For one, he argued that light was entering the eye, not leaving it and being intercepted or such. He also recognised that the eye was not alone in its involvement with sight, but that the brain played a major part. The dominant flaw in his work (which we recognise now) was that he taught that light was interpreted in the lens (and sent to the brain), whereas now we know it happens in the retina.

The point of the above was not a full blown history of sight. There are many improvements, theories and other experiments that have led to a much better understanding of how an eye works, including its limits. But what it proves is that the ‘fact’ is not a constant thing. No doubt the Greek philosophers thought they had it almost cracked but, although they did not live to see it, al-Haytham tore down their theory. Their ‘facts’ became fiction. But even al-Haythem, brilliant as he was for his work a thousand years ago, was flawed, and some of his ‘facts’ have been disproved by modern science.

But they also show something else. The Greeks thinking about eyes, even if they were mostly wrong, was that first step. Al-Haytham’s work was the next. We are now at the stage where we understand the eye quite well, it’s the bit afterwards we don’t quite get. Just because we now say the retina sends the information not the lens does not mean al-Haytham’s work is pointless, to be discarded. His ‘facts’ have evolved, through many stages, into what we now believe. And we are not entirely there either; we haven’t set that most factual ‘fact’ possible. In the future, maybe the far future, we will understand the entire process, and by that time we will look upon the ‘facts’ of the 21st century and scoff. But without it, we’d still be thinking we sent out invisible feelers, or not bothering to think at all.

If you want to see the destruction of facts in action, look at a rock. Your mind tells you, your senses tell you, that it is solid. You can pick it up; you can see that it is solid. No doubt you can hit it against something and the sound will tell you so. But physics tells us otherwise. All the matter in the universe is mostly empty space. That rock in front of you is, by definition, hollow.

I find that mind blowing, although some physicists accept it in their stride (and no doubt there are people who deny it completely). This rock, that hurts if it hits me, that I can feel and see as solid, is mostly empty space. Electrons (which we do not fully understand) orbiting a dense nucleus (which we do not fully understand), at insane distances in comparison to their size. If a nucleus was the size of a marble, the electron would be half a kilometre away. The nucleus is not the size of a marble, in ‘fact’ it would take 20 million full hydrogen atoms to fill the size of this dash -. And rocks are considerably larger than that and, granted, not made out of hydrogen atoms but out of compounds that are a fair bit larger, but not even one of them would begin to register to our eyes. So we perceive the rock as solid, whilst simultaneously knowing that it is mostly empty space. Science has torn down a fact that has been built into us from birth.

A more every day ‘fact’ (let’s face it, a rock still hurts when it hits you, whether you know it is hollow or not) that we have destroyed is that we lose most heat through our head. This was drilled into me as a child and I, sensibly, wore a hat in cold weather and if ever I was getting cold it was my head I protected first (although there were often other clothes involved, for the sake of decency). But then scientists Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll come along and tell us this is not so. No more heat is lost through our head than through anywhere else. A hat still helps, because it’s still covering an area where heat can be lost from, but it’s not like wrapping yourself in a flexible radiator. Looking at it now it looks obvious; if so much heat is lost through our head, why does losing your trousers make you feel so much colder? But it was an established fact before, and now it is a myth.
The moral is that not everything we think of as a ‘fact’ is true, even ones that have held steadfastly against the test of time. And as scientists delve deeper into the realms of quantum mechanics (and as Richard Feynman said, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics) we can expect to see more and more ‘facts’ brought into the fiction section. But never forget, without those first flawed facts, we wouldn’t understand anything today.

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?

I've decided to cover a rather difficult and controversial topic for my second post. That of homosexuality. Deep stuff...

First things first, I'm straight. So this does not come from personal experience, but rather a bystanders view of what occurs, and his questions as to why. Personally, I see no problem in it. We live in a modern culture where equality is supposed to prevail, and the understanding that people stray from the 'norm', in all its stifling boredom. The problem being is that a number of people do not feel this way, and reject the modern acceptance that women can love women, and men can love men. Nick Griffin, in his esteemed position as the head of the most controversial, racist and homophobic party in the British democratic system, is a prominent example of one who fails to grasp that such things happen.

However, to offer a counter argument to their belief one must analyse the beliefs. What arguments can be used against homosexuality? I shall take a few in turn, and refute them.

For the survival of the species, it is a nightmare. The human body is designed to produce more children when men and women come together, not when a man and another man do. Thus it can be argued that it 'violates natural law'. Indeed, it is detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, but there are some important counter arguments.

First and foremost, do we really need more people? It may be cold and horrifically logical, but one counter argument is to say that our population has already reached the level where our world cannot support it. This refutes the argument that we need more children, as we have too many! That is not to say that it's the solution to our population problem, but it's an argument against those who say it is detrimental to the species.

Another assault people use is that gay people can be 'cured', as if it's a disease. In fact, it was on the British Register of diseases until as late as the 1970s. People use this argument to say that it is not natural, a flaw in a person that can be ironed out, usually through abuse and discrimination. The counter argument is simple; there is growing proof that people are hardwired a certain way. Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are there from birth, and remain dormant until puberty. Indeed, heterosexuality is the most common, but that's not to say that just because the other two are 'uncommon' (1 in 20) that they are unnatural. There are plenty of uncommon traits that are natural; ginger hair being one.

It is important to remember that much of the discrimination against gays comes from religious teachings. The old testament of the bible includes two distinct pointers on the matter. One is amongst the 613 commandments given to Moses, which states (in a round about way) anyone who 'lays with a man as one lays with a woman...' should be killed. The other, later on, says that although homosexual feelings are natural, they should be suppressed.

As a non-christian it easy for me to ignore this, and so not go around battering gays to death. But neither do Christians. Churches do not organise the planned death or lynching of homosexuals. For once, the bible is wholly ignored. If the very people who adhere to their holy tome do not follow it, why should others use it as an excuse for discrimination and prejudice?

A final attack that I'm going to cover is the stereotype of gays as pedophilic, sadomasochistic weirdos. Simply because people so not fit the 'norm' in one way does not mean they will diversify into different, and more obscure things. It is simple to refute this argument. It does not happen, and so the stereotype (and invention of a less developed time that plagues us now) is wrong. Such differences are no more common amongst homosexuals than amongst straight people.

And I shall leave it at that. There is no rule about heterosexuality and homosexuality that means we have to bully the minority of people who are hardwired differently at birth. So why should we?

Saturday, 13 March 2010

Hello World

Well, second attempt at getting this all up and running. It's amazing how small interruptions can delay the time between making a blog and actually filling it up with tasty morsels of the mind.

I'm Michael Parker, secondary school student of North Cheam, England.

My hobbies, as it is customary to introduce in your first post, include writing stories, playing the bass guitar (to what quality is best left to the imagination) , tabletop wargaming and painting, and the ever present pull of journalism that has prompted me to write this blog.

Which comes to the next point. What is the point of this blog? Generally I find the best things in life are those which are without a point, or at least ones that will not effect my life as a whole. Somethings, however, must have a point or they are useless exercises. This blog will, in all, have some sort of loose point. It is an area to place my reflections on the world around me, hopefully where someone, somewhere, will see them. The Internet is a vast place where you can send your message to every perceivable audience, but whether it gets read or not depends on the mound of interesting or pointless things that are above it. Or how often my spelling and punctuation mistakes reduce this to the kind of quality that can be seen on MySpace or a four year old's scrap book.

Perhaps that is a secondary point of this blog, spawning from the 'braindump' it will be; a place to express my outrage or concern of the world around me. Whether it degenerates into a pointless rant zone remains to be seen.

So for now I will conclude this post, on perhaps the most oft used, cliched, and absolute worse cliff hanger ever perceived by mankind.

I'll be back.