• Thursday 24th July 2008

what? other people have sex?

Why are the so-called "reporters", owners and readers of The Sun "news"paper so concerned and appalled by how other consenting adults enjoy their sex lives? Sex lives that carry on behind locked doors and pulled curtains and in no way impinge upon the safety, security, health or welfare of those not involved? Sex lives that may or may not be more imaginative and exciting than their own, perhaps? Are they just jealous? Do they seriously think exposing the sexual habits of other people is in the public interest?

The public are indeed interested; I'd suggest we're all interested in other peoples' sex lives and that those who say they're not are lying. But the public being interested is very different from being in the public interest. I'd go on to further suggest that the newspaper's motive has more to do with making money than making the world a better place. They go to great lengths to hunt out these stories, then embellish, exaggerate and expose them purely to boost sales of their sorry rag, purely to make more money.

Thank Zarquon the judge in the recent Max Mosley vs. The Sun Newspaper case had his feet firmly rooted in common sense... although I am intrigued by how the judge knew the "bondage, beating and domination" that took place was "typical of S&M behaviour"

I'm just interested, that's all!

Have your say              Back to top

• Date Saturday 19th 2008

wanna lose weight? shrink your brain!

An unfortunate woman almost died and was left brain damaged, recently by a stupid, faddy, trendy fashion-diet.

Why can't people understand that (for the vast majoroty of the worried well-but-overweight) food and nutrition isn't some dark art for which you have to consult an "expert" for advice. Besides the fact that most of these "experts" are just self-taught woo-woo quack practitioners who peddle magic spells and snake oil; food, calories, losing weight, dieting, whatever you want to call it is very, very simple...

If Calories In don't equal Calories Out, you will gain or lose weight.

It really is as simple as that; if you eat more calories than you use, you will gain weight, if you eat fewer calories than you use you will lose weight. To lose weight, you must either take in fewer calories or use up more calories. How many more ways can I say it?

There's no magic potion or easy way, no quick method (excepting radical surgery) and there's no secret. The Super Watch-The-Lard-Drop-Off Cabbage Soup Diet only works because it restricts your calorie intake, the Magic Replace-Your-Meals-With-Breakfast-Cereal Diet works because it restricts your calorie intake. The All-Organic Run-Like-Hell-For-Eight-Hours-A-Day Diet works because it increases the calories you use. See the pattern developing here?

I look very suspiciously and carefully at any product or person purporting to have a magic, quick or easy way to get in trim because it always turns out that they're playing upon your insecurities in order to get their hands on some of your money. Most "low fat" foods, for example are no better at helping you lose weight than the ordinary, and cheaper, alternative. Manufacturers of low fat, "diet" or "lite" foods often replace the fat with sugar to keep it palatable and yummy; you eat the sugar and guess what? Yes... your body turns it to fat!

Look at the small print on food packaging. Pay particular attention to the "calories per 100g" figure, do some comparing and you'll soon see that more often than you think is reasonable, the expensive "low fat" version actually has virtually the same or even more calories than the usual, nicer tasting less chemical-ridden run-of-the-mill alternative.

My advice, as a non-qualified non-expert, is to simply increase the calories you use by spending less time in front of the telly, continue eating all your yummy full-fat usual foods, but eat less of it. Eat more vegetables and fruit. Make sure you use more calories than you eat until you reach your ideal weight, then make an effort to use all the calories you eat each day, or eat only the calories you're going to use each day.

Simple, and it works.

Have your say              Back to top

• Date Monday 14th July 2008

it's crackers

American catholics are absolutely apoplectic with rage and are issuing death threats; yes, death threats because some one has upset a biscuit!

Catholics really, actually, truly believe that a lump of stale bread resembling a cracker (catholics call it a eucharist) really, actually, truly becomes the real, actual body of Jesus after it has been subject to some hand waving and magic spell mumbling (they call this biscuit-turning-to-flesh magic "transubstantiation"). The waving and mumbling is a prelude to the catholic eating the biscuit, eating the body of Jesus (eyuch!) whilst drinking his blood which is transubstantiated wine (retch-eeeyuucch!!), as part of their strange superstition. Well, after some child took one of these biscuits from a church he was accused of all manner of religious "hate crimes" and was subject to threats of death and violence. A favourite blogger of mine commented on the debacle and as a result has himself been sent threats of death and violence.

I find this whole thing makes me almost apoplectic with incredulity! Firstly, has any catholic stood back and looked at the sheer stupidity of this whole transubstantiation/eucharist thing. What a load of complete, primitive, superstitious utter crap and drivel! Get real.

Secondly; death threats? over a biscuit? For fuck's sake!

Religious people are soooo nice... aren't they, though?

Thirdly; aren't there more important things to worry about? Why wasn't there an outcry even a fraction the size of this eucharist thing, about catholic priests buggering choirboys? Don't catholics worry about the buggering? Don't they care? Is the fucking stupid biscuit really more important than the buggering of children by cult leaders who dress up in black and scarlet robes, wear silly hats and go around telling everyone what to think?

I'm with PeeZee when he says, "...people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion."

Have your say              Back to top

• Saturday 5th July 2008

praise god through death and violence

When I started this blog I decided I'd avoid cliches like "you couldn't make it up" and "the world is going to hell in a handcart", but you really couldn't make up this new evidence for the handcart's existence and the stopping-at-all-stations route it's going to take...

An Oklahoma baptist church is giving away an AR-15 Semiautomatic Asasault Rifle - in a raffle - as an incentive for kids to attend a youth conference. The church's pastor, Bob Ross, insists however that the conference is about the youngsters "finding faith", rather than about finding a target.

Holy Zarquon! How fucking stupid are these people? I often exclaim, "stupid Americans!" when I hear of their latest brain-dead earth-saving, people preserving, liberty spreading, activities, but this really takes the biscuit.

It's made me realise, though. There really is something more socially retarded than an American: a Religious American.

You hear that sound? That's my mind boggling.

Have your say              Back to top

• Friday 27th June 2008

it's a bit risky

Have you noticed the plethora of signs that have sprung up in public areas warning you of the land or property owner's absolvement from any duty of care you may have erroneously thought they had..?

The owner cannot be held responsible for...

You use this facility at your own risk...

Children must be supervised...

in a car park:
Beware vehicles manoeuvring...

near rocks on a beach:
Rocks may be slippery, the council can not be held repsonsible...

Cars parked at owner's risk...

etc etc.

Add to this the fact that some local authorities have taken to cutting down trees for fear of children climbing them, falling out and hurting themselves, or removing playground equipment, and it makes me wonder if we're just storing up trouble for the future.

Aren't we just breeding a race of people who have lost the ability to judge and assess a situation, work out the possible dangers, odds against having an accident and proceed accordingly.

Spelling out the process like that makes it sound very difficult and complex, but in fact most people do this in the blink of an eye hundreds of times a day. So why do local authorities, land and property owners feel it's necessary to take on this task for us by pointing out the dangers in a sign?

Do they do it so if they're sued, they can say in court "Mr Smith was warned of the dangers involved with sitting in my my pub's beer garden, yet he still chose to do so"?

Well then, if the land or property owner feels it necessary to point out some dangers and pitfalls, can I legitimately sue if I suffer from something that was not pointed out to me? After all, I assume from the signs that tell me there may be cars moving about the car park that the owner has taken it upon himself to point out even the tiniest and most insignificant danger. So I can quite safely just stop thinking for myself... can't I?

Are we going to see signs that read like the following?

The owner cannot be held responsible
for errors or omissions in any sign on the
property pointing out dangers to health or welfare
or the owner's responsibilities or duty of care,
or lack of therin.

I'm guessing it won't be long before some legal eagle sees the drawing up and wording of these signs as a (very necessary and important) way to make a bit more money.

It really is about time judges, in cases arising out of accidents for which people are trying to claim "compensation", ruled that common sense should have been employed, that everyday life is a risk and that some things happen for which no one is to blame.

Have your say              Back to top

• 15th June 2008

believe everything or only the best bits

Two guys have exchanged vows and affirmed their love and respect for each other in some kind of church ceremony this week and the fascist faction of the Anglican church are, unsurprisingly, up in arms.

Can someone please explain why these primitive people are so concerned about what two blokes get up to or don't get up to in private? Why does it bother them? What impact is it having on them?

The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, is one of the oustpoken faction. He says, "Our respect for the Church of England will erode unless we see a return to traditional teaching."

Traditional teaching?

Traditional Teaching says you can beat your wife for disobedience, kill your children for disobedience, kill any one who teaches contrary to the word of your god or tempts you away from your nonsense religion, sell your daughter into prostitution, send your daughter out into the street to be gang raped, rather than offend a guest in your house (the bible makes this very clear on two separate occasions), take people of other races and beliefs as slaves: superstitious, racist, misogynistic crap, after more superstitious, racist, misogynistic crap...

Does Henry Orombi want society to return to these teachings and practices?

How do the devout decide which parts of their holy books and words of god to completely ignore and which parts to hold so dearly they will fight wars and fall out with each other about?

What a complete waste of time and effort farce religion really is. The irony of it all is that these two blokes are both priests! You'd think they'd know better than get involved with a bunch of weirdos who dress in black and go around telling everyone what to do.

Have your say              Back to top

• Wednesday 28th May 2008

it's black and white

I recently had a discussion with a friend who has started to suffer from the American Disease. He's been watching American TV, listening to American radio and podcasts and now thinks that evolution is a myth. I kind of won him back with an example of evolution in progress...

Have you ever noticed those big black crows that hang around on the hard shoulder of motorways? Ever wonder why they're still alive? I remember when I was a kid they were always being squashed.

I'm convinced it's down to simple evolution: The ones who aren't (or weren't) afraid to cross the thick white line onto the carriageway are dead and so haven't been able to breed and pass on their genes. The ones with the completely useless (in nature), irrational fear of crossing the white line are safe and well, happily passing on the "scary white line" gene.

Something that randomly occurred in the wiring of a crow's brain; something that spontaneously occurred because of a stray cosmic ray or deformity, and which in nature would be a completely useless mutation is working to the crow's advantage, preserving it's life and enabling it to pass on the benefit to next-generation crows.

This is how evolution works. A behaviourism, trait or physical deformity that gives the animal an advantage is passed on to next generation animals. Behaviourisms, traits and deformities that offer no advantage are diluted and eventually disappear.

You didn't think for one moment (did you?) that the crows rationally assess the situation and say to themselves, "The cars have been known to squash my fellow crows - I've seen it happen. A car may squash me. The cars never cross the white line, so I'm safe if I never cross the white line when I'm looking for insects or eating other dead crows."

Have your say              Back to top

• Monday 19th May 2008

testing time

There's a lot in the news about SATS and how we're testing our kids too much recently. Lots of knowledgable people are being wheeled out to give their opinion, reasons and to defend or ridicule the policy.

I think almost everyone has missed the point, or if they haven't then they're just keeping schtum for fear of upsetting the teachers...

I don't think the SATS tests and exams are anything to do with testing the kids. They're more to do with testing the teachers and schools. Teachers are great whingers and the thing they tend to whinge about most is being assessed themselves and having an eye kept on them.

I know from my experience at school there used to be some absolutely dire teachers (Mr Lunn, you know who you are) and some as thick as three short planks held together with stupid glue (Mr Fenn, please step forward). Out of about fifty teachers there were only about ten who I'd consider good enough to merit their full wage packet at the end of each month. I was seriously let down in several areas of my education because of these idiot teachers who were allowed to stumble from year to year, year after year after year.

However, if I were to do my job as badly as some of these teachers, I'd very soon be out of said job. In fact, in almost every profession this level of sheer incompetence would earn you a sacking within a few short months. Why? Simply because there's someone assessing the quality of work done and measuring performance. This never seemed to happen in schools in the past. The teachers and heads were all friends and colleagues, reluctant to blow the whistle or point the finger.

Keep it up; teachers can't be trusted to police themselves - they've proven that to me in the past and (from nephews and nieces who still attend my old school) I can only see benefits in keeping an eye on them and making sure my tax dollar is spent wisely.

Have your say              Back to top

• Saturday 10th May 2008

where do you get your money

It's odd, isn't it, that there seems to be two types of people who appear in the media to comment on psychic phenomena, S.C.A.M. (Supplements, Complimentary & Alternative Medicine), UFOs, outlandish conspiracies, the more niche religions and so on. They're...

a/ Those who pretend to believe it all, promote and spread the disinformation

and...

b/ Those who try to debunk it, deny its true and spread scientific fact.

It's also interesting to note that the vast majority in these two groups fall into two further categories...

1/ Those who are selling a large or growing back catalogue of books on said topics and derive their major income from these books

and...

2/ Those who have other jobs as scientists, journalists and engineers.

It's absolutely fascinating to note that in ninety nine cases out of ten, those in group a also belong to group 1 and those in group b also belong to group 2.

Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect those in groups a1 have a vested interest in keeping the mythologies, untruths and fantastic claims alive and in the public domain because they want to continue deriving income from their books and selling ad space for other crap on their web sites.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 6th May 2008

uniform

It's summer and suddenly everyone is dressing for the heat. Including those who like to pretend they play for major football teams. Half of Manchester United, the England team, Liverpool and various other teams were walking around my local town today! But how they've put on weight; some of them could hardly walk. I could tell they were real players because thay all had badly spelled tattoos...

Who do these people think they're kidding? Do they really think onlookers are going to mistake them and their twelve stone beer guts for real soccer stars? Isn't it a bit childish and stupid to dress up as your soccer heros? most people grow out of the dressing up thing when they're six and the knees of their Spiderman outfit start to go.

I'm quite partial to the odd episode of Star Trek (the original series, of course), and I'm quite sure these highly evolved, deep thinking individuals would kick me to within an inch of my life if they thought I'd been sitting around dressed as Captain Kirk.

<vent organ="spleen">For fuck's sake: Grow Up!</vent> It's about time you all started to laugh and point at these soccer star impersonators when you see them, as I do.

Speaking of Star Trek, and because I like to bring
everything around to religion, a quick Roddenberry quote...

We must question the logic in a story about an all-knowing, all-powerful
god who creates faulty humans, then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991), creator of Star Trek

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 29th April 2008

eternally optimistic

I work at home most of the time, and in our residential suburb there are lots of deliveries. Parcels, packets, the odd fridge, Ocado, Parcel Force; the list is endless. Where I sit in my office I can see the delivery vans turn up to most of the properties in the neighbourhood. I have to just commend the delivery drivers for their eternal optimism.

You see, property in this area of the UK is so overpriced that no one can afford to stay off work, have kids, go to the pub, stop working for any reason whatsoever in fact, for fear of falling behind on the mortgage repayments. Consequently, no one is ever actually at home in the houses they're all working so hard to pay for.

Yet, time and time again the delivery drivers turn up, walk to the rear of their vans, rummage around for the package, fridge, TV or whatever and trundle up to the appropriate front door with it. Time and time again they have to return it to the van and post a card through instead.

Or deliver it to my house, because they know I'm always here and I'm a kind soul who will collect parcels, fridges and TVs all day for everyone in my neighbourhood.

Ho hum.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 22nd April 2008

boardroom united fc

Is it just me or is football getting incredibly tedious?

It's not Leeds against Middlesborough, or Hamilton Academicals against Sheffield Wednesday anymore: it's one fat cat boardroom director-type against another rich businessman tycoon-type. They simply buy up players from all over the world and just call the team Newcastle United, Portsmouth or whatever. The games are just won by whoever can afford the best players and coaches; not by the geographical area who nurtures the best sportsmen.

It's just so tedious: what's the point? What are the games and tournaments intended to prove? Where's the genuine sporting rivalry?

It's sad that most football fanatics are just too brain dead to think about it. They whine and whinge about what football has become, the price of tickets, the fact that the best seats in the stadium go to corporate events, the price of merchandising, the blatant commercialisation of the game, the foreign players. They can't see through their psychopathic, blind, religious devotion to the beautiful game far enough to realise they could reclaim football for themselves and make it the way they want it in one season.

One season of boycotting the matches, merchandising and commercialism would see it collapse completely, the city stockbrokers who now control football would pay them to take it off their hands.

Then they could re-write the rule books...

• Players must be drawn from a radius of 30 miles from the football ground
• Players can be bought and sold between teams as long as the 30 mile radius rule isn't broken
• A percentage of all profits must be donated to the Phys Ed departments of local schools
• Maximum annual earning for a player will not exceed that of the Prime Minister
• Steak pies should contain real steak
• Delia should do the cooking
• etc...

I'm deadly serious about this.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 15th April 2008

government regulated psychics?

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 which contains "express provision for the punishment of persons who fraudulently purport to act as spiritualistic mediums or to exercise powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers" is being repealed and replaced by parts of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007.

This must be a step in the right direction because these so-called psychics, mediums and spiritualists are up in arms. Indeed they are actively campaigning to keep the old 1951 laws. Campaigns which suggest to me that the old laws are not worth the paper they are written on.

The psychic industry in the UK is worth bi££ions. Psychic "readings" are not given to the vulnerable, hard of thinking and recently bereaved for free, there is usually a charge made. Psychic and spiritualist adverts and web sites are replete with phrases such as "the service I offer", "my clients include" and "spiritual workers" etc. Sometimes menus and price lists are published. Many "psychics" pay tax on their income. Psychic phone lines, where you can pay good money to have meaningless psychi-babble phrases read to you from a crib sheet by an actor, cost a small fortune. You can even exchange a cheque for a promise to carry out various "spiritualist" services from some distant person.

Now, suddenly, psychics are claiming their services are provided out of a deep concern for the welfare of those seeking help (not clients or customers any more), and the money they receive is incidental or a gift, donation or help with running costs etc.

Now any disgruntled "customers" are going to be able to sue if the advice given by the "psychic" turns out to be bad or lacking. It is also going to be incumbent upon people offering "psychic" services to vet their clients for the vulnerable or infirm as well as either unequivocally prove their psychic abilities, or issue disclaimers that their psychic readings healing, raising the dead and promises of good fortune are "scientific tests or experiments, the results of which can not be guaranteed".

Carole McEntee-Taylor who is a vocal opponent of the new laws says "no other religion has to do what mediums/spiritualists now have to do". She is right, but I don't understand why she is singling out religion as a motive. Whether the person offering a "psychic" service is doing it as part of a religious ritual or not is not the issue. The issue is how much money is fraudulently taken from the hard of thinking, infirm or vulnerable by promising contact with dead relatives and loved ones, cures for acute or terminal illnesses or promises of luck and good fortune. The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that any one - religious or not - can communicate with or receive messages from the dead or deities, heal with a touch or influence some one else's good or bad luck with chants and magic. On the contrary; there is ample scientific evidence that it's all a load of shite and that those purporting to do these things are either...

1/ so weak of mind that they believe it all themselves and, further, believe they have some kind of power or gift that few others posess,

or,

2/ they know it's all complete bollox and are deliberately defrauding those they prey on.

If you can or you know someone who can do anything paranormal, then the JREF are waiting to give you a million dollars.

On her web site Carole McEntee-Taylor claims "...part of Spiritualism's philosophy is that we each have free will and thus are responsible for our own choices and the results of these choices. Unfortunately, the culture prevailing within today's society is not to accept any responsibility for one's actions but to look for some one else to blame. Matters of spiritual belief have always been highly personal and nothing to do with consumerism, even if a service is being provided."

Consumerism? Mmm... Carole and David McEntee-Taylor, as many true believers do, have a financial interest in perpetuating belief in mind reading and other woo-woo paranormal crap. They sell their books on the subject. ("The Re-Enlightenment - A Spiritual Handbook" by Carole and David McEntee-Taylor, £9.99 and coming soon are "The Re-Enlightenment 2" and "The Re-Enlightenment 3"). Look at the credentials and activities of people who comment on woo-woo crap (whether it's this kind of preying on the vulnerable, UFO nuts, conspiracy theorists or alternative "medicine") and generally they tend to fall in to two groups: the "believers" and proponents who are usually selling a large back catalogue of books they have written on the subject or are in other ways raking in the lolly; and the non-believers, skeptics and detractors who are in paid employment as scientists, journalists or researchers.

Take responsibility? Mmm... Perhaps Ms McEntee-Taylor will blame herself then, when the spirits offer the wrong advice? Perhaps she will also blame herself for contributing to the grief and misery the recently bereaved are suffering and prolonging their grief by pretending to convey messages from their dead loved ones.

And as far as McEntee-Taylor's whingeing about religious inequality goes... She's right: all people, religious or not, should have to back up all claims with scientific facts and the proper independently conducted research. Whether they're claiming that magnets will align your energy or aura, grass juice or milk-based bio cultures will cure bloating and make you thinner, whether they're claiming a certain oil will make your hair 72% more shiny, or that a hot stone will cure your bad back, whether they're claiming they can arrange your furniture into a configuration less likely to cause your investments to fail, whether they're claiming a phial of pure water or a sugar pill will cure your piles, whether they're insisting that having the odd wank will buy you an express ticket to hell, or claiming they know some god's opinion on women's fashion... they should all put up or shut up or end up in court then in prison.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 1st April 2008

catholic animal/human hybrids

The leader of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien says Animal - human hybrid embryos are a monstrous attack on human rights, well, I have questions...

So this is an attack on Human Rights, is it? How can Catholics make this pronouncement with a straight face?

Don't they consider denying abortion to victims of rape and incest an attack on human rights?

Don't they think that imprisoning young girls for 30 years after showing up in middle American hospitals with a perforated uterus an attack on human rights? Young girls who have risked back street procedures because interfering Catholic bastards have blackmailed the authorities there into making all abortions illegal.

Don't they think that campaigning against Human Papiloma Virus vaccinations, on the grounds that cervical cancer might be a good deterrent to pre-marital sex, an attack on human rights.

Don't they think that raping choirboys is a violation of human rights? Choirboys that they have themselves brainwashed into holding all persons pious in the greatest regard.

Don't they think brainwashing young children into living lives of suffering, guilt and in fear of eternal punishment by mythological beings a violation of human rights? Brainwashing that makes these young children feel enormous guilt for having original thoughts and normal human urges and instincts.

Don't they think that being so concerned about the private activities of consenting gay people that they actively campaign against these people achieving certain positions within society is an attack on Human Rights?

Are these idiot, childish, superstitious interfering old misogynistic bigots living on the same planet as me?

They are deliberately misleading the public: The embryos produced are made by putting human DNA into animal egg "shells" that have been stripped of animal DNA. I can't believe these idiots haven't been told this; they're just lying. Further this situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place if DNA and bio material were more available for research and experiment. Who is responsible for making the material very scarce? Answer: stupid ignorant religious people who campaign for restrictions on anything that will further our scientific knowledge.

Why do Catholics attach so much importance to a bunch of 256 cells, and so little concern, compassion or importance for living people who are suffering dreadful diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS, cancer, etc. Oh, I forgot, Catholics think cancer is a good thing.

Have your say              Back to top

• Wednesday 12th March 2008

should atheists just quietly put up with religion?

I recently came across a Query in the on-line Guardian. The question was "Should atheists be required to accept in silence the irrationality that goes with religious faith? Must we appear to tolerate error gladly?"

They didn't print my answer so here it is...

No; we should stand up for our beliefs and proclaim loudly the stupidity and waste of effort, money and time religion really is.

Effort, money and time that could be better spent making our planet a more pleasant place to live, instead of dividing us into those who will fight and die for their misplaced beliefs in an imagined being's preferences for burkhas or mini skirts.

Have your say              Back to top

• Friday 7th March 2008

homeocrapathy - update

I know why they do it!

I have discovered the incoherent idiotic ramblings of David Tredinnick, Tory MP for Bosworth. This leader and representative of the people frequently espouses on the benefits of complementary medicine.

See this link for a list of his speeches in which he mentions complementary medicine.

So... health authorities spend millions of pounds on this crap based medicine because there are people's representatives like Tredinnick who encourage it. Why does this idiot think we should spend any money on completely superstition- and folk lore-based "therapies"; "therapies" that have been proven over and over again to be completely useless or even dangerous; when the party to which he lends his allegiance is constantly whingeing that the government of the day isn't spending enough on real doctors and nurses?

Can't he see, for example that as long as we allow, or people like him encourage, Chinese Traditional Medicine, there is always going to be a market for the body parts of tigers (only about 4000 left on earth) and parts of rhinos (less than 19000 left on earth). Doesn't he see the unbelievable stupidity in the fact that in a few years time there will be no rhinos because the childishly superstitious think that eating rhino horn, which is very vaguely similar in shape to an erect penis, may cure them of their inability to get it up? An inability that in the vast majority of cases throughout the world is caused by smoking. Why doesn't Tredinnick speak out against smoking?

Again I'll say: prove complimentary woo woo crap-based medicine works or make it illegal. It kills people by the thousand every year; people who put their faith in it instead of seeking real medical help.

Tredinnick should put up or shut up as well as be ashamed of himself.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 4th March 2008

episode 4: a new pope

Look at this, a new pope.

It's hilarious. The pious don't understand that we non-believers see their religion exactly like this: stupid meaningless ritual, magic and superstition. I think the reason we atheists don't band together much and form action groups is because we simply can't understand that the pious can possibly take any of it at all seriously; we think it must be a joke!

Have your say              Back to top

• Thursday 28th February 2008

we need id cards, why?

Protesters on the roof of the House of Commons yesterday brought commentators in a rash of unfounded logic and pronouncements about the protesters having inside help to find their way around inside and on to the roof.

Several years ago during the incident when anti-hunt protesters gained access to the House of Commons there were similar claims that the protesters must have had inside help with directions. At the time I found these plans freely available on the internet...

These are highly detailed plans showing lifts, cashpoints, the staircase up to the Hansard Cubicles and North Bridge, in pdf and eps format which means you can see them like this or better if you zoom in...

...detail enough to take out the broom cupboard with a well aimed RBS 70 Surface-to-Surface.

The plans were still available on the internet yesterday. I tipped off Radio 4's PM programme and they found them in a trice, although they were dismissed on the programme as historical maps by some Westminster security "expert".

It's little wonder the Government want us all chipped, barcoded, tagged, indexed and DNA profiled; they can't be arsed to take even simple precautions like making sure these plans aren't available to the public.

Until they start taking their own and our security seriously I can't see any reason to give up my privacy and individuality and subject myself to the indignity of being reduced to a 10 digit number on an ID Card.

The innocent have nothing to fear? As an innocent man I fear the incompetence with which my private details will inevitably be mis-handled.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 26th February 2008

homeocrapathy

West Kent Primary Care Trust has been spending £200,000 a year on...

wait for it...

homeopathy!

Jesus Harry Christ! I'm appalled; I knew some health authorities spent some money on this kind of utter bollox but does this mean they're also spending £200K on chiropractic, £200K on aromatherapy, £200K on acupuncture, £200K on hypnotherapy, £200K on reflexology, £200K on shiatsu, £200K on herbalism, £200K on Iridology, £200K on acupressure, £200K on reiki?

That's 2 million quid, without counting money spent on bach flower remedies, craniomassage, guided imagery, tantric alexander palm divining and all the other shite.

We could pay for another army of doctors and nurses for that: people who dedicate their lives to working very hard for the good of their patients. Rather than scam artists who just turn up, wave some beads and rattles and line their own pockets whilst the patient dies because she sought proper medical intervention too late.

What the hell cookoo-nut tree are these so-called health care professionals living in if they think this is good use of tax payer's money?

"Alternative medicine" is not harmless fun or a bit of placebo: it kills thousands of people who place their trust in it instead of seeking proper medical help.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: make "alternative medicine" illegal until it is proven to be even a tiny bit effective.

Have your say              Back to top

• Saturday 23rd February 2008

quackometer < > jobi

The excellent Quackometer blog has been shut down by its ISP, Netcetera after both were threatened with legal action by quack doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi.

Jo Obi's entire styling is...

Distinguished Provost of RCAM (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK).

(All those letters after his name are either simply bought on line for as little as £30 or are from bodies he has simply made up himself.)

...anyway; the Quackometer posted a critical blog entry about this dubious fellow, calling him out on his quackery and he threatened to sue both Quackometer and Netcetera.

Netcetera are either...

• 1/ sympathetic to Jo Obi and his practices,
• 2/ didn't do any research in to Jo Obi to determine whether or not Quackometer's comments were justified,
  or
• 3/ cowardly, scared little yellow-bellied bunnies who feel intimidated by people like Jo Obi

The equally excellent Skeptico have reproduced Quackometer's "offending" blog entry here.

There's an article from the North East's Evening Chronicle here about Jo Obi, who used to be employed by the Primary Care Trust there.

Take a look, do a bit more research and decide for yourself.

Quackometer has found a more resilient ISP and so has moved to here.

Have your say              Back to top

• Monday 18th February 2008

anti-islamic activity? jaqui smith? home secretary?

The Qur'an calls Muslims to submit to Allah and commands them to subdue people of other religions until they submit to Islamic rule...

"Fight those who do not believe Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
—Qur'an, Sura 9:29

Those who fight in the Jihad receive special reward and status. Jihad means "fight" or "holy war". Some will have you believe it means "inner fight" or "inner struggle". If this were true, why does the Qur'an exempt the elderly and infirm from Jihad?

"The holders back from among the believers, not having any injury, and those who strive hard in Allah's way with their property and their persons are not equal; Allah has made the strivers with their property and their persons to excel the holders back a (high) degree, and to each (class) Allah has promised good; and Allah shall grant to the strivers above the holders back a mighty reward"
—Qur'an, Sura 4:95

Now, the Home Secretary Jaqui Smith is calling Islam-inspired acts of terror "Anti-Islamic activity".

Anti-Islamic activity? This is insulting to my intelligence; if these activities were really anti-Islam, then such cow-towing wouldn't be necessary because British Muslims would be leading the fight against these activities. Or am I missing something obvious?

There isn't a single verse in the Qur'an that speaks of love or tolerance of non-Muslims. There are 493 verses that either tell Muslims to kill unbelievers or tell of Allah's hatred for them. The Qur'an explains in great and gory detail how non-Muslims (the vilest of animals, as they are referred to) will be tortured in hell.

Why do we rarely, if ever, see Muslims on TV denouncing religion-inspired acts of terror? Why do we only ever see them complaining about trivial things, like criticism of the hijab, naming a teddy bear or printing a cartoon. Why are they all so reluctant to come forward and speak about the big things, the things that matter? Rather than whether or not some imaginary god or other takes a personal interest in womens' headwear and fashion.

This stupid language only serves to absolve Muslims of their responsibilities to get their house in order. On top of that it's more evidence of the increasingly annoying habit (policy) of appeasing not only religious fundamentalists but all religious subscribers.

You've read my rants on this before, so here is Christopher Hitchens' take on the recent Muhammad cartoons debacle...

Islamic mobs were violating diplomatic immunity and issuing death threats against civilians, yet the response from His Holiness the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury was to condemn... the cartoons! In my own profession [journalism -Gil], there was a rush to see who could capitulate the fastest, by reporting on the disputed images without actually showing them. And this at a time when the mass media has become almost exclusively picture-driven. Euphemistic noises were made about the need to show "respect" but I know quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for "restraint" was simple fear. In other words, a handful of religious bullies and bigmouths could, so to speak, outvote the tradition of free expression in its Western heartland.
—Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything

Have your say              Back to top

• Friday 15th February 2008

peace, tolerance & equality

The Saudi's have tried some illiterate woman with "witchcraft as a crime against god", tortured her into confessing, found her guilty and are intending to cut off her head "for the benefit of public interest"!

Fawza Falih has been enduring imprisonment, torture, trials and appeals since 2005.

There are articles about it here, and here.

The Saudi's are quite obviously stupid, barbarian, primitive, superstitious idiots. It's absolutely incredible: they're children, living in the dark ages. Except, they have more toys than we had during our dark ages, they have oil, nuclear power, ballistic missiles. It's intensely worrying that these people are planning to go into space and develop advanced technology.

Ah, but I forget. We're told over and over again that their religion is one of peace, tolerance and equality - so I'm sure it will all turn out OK in the end for poor Ms Fawza.

Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury should look into her situation and see if he can't persuade the Saudi's to accept some parts of our legal system.

Have your say              Back to top

• Thursday 14th February 2008

fecalopathy - crap based medicine

Check out the new Crap-based Medicine blog; it says it all...

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 12th February 2008

being buzzed today

This helicopter has been flying over my house for over half an hour now...

Have your say              Back to top

• Sunday 10th February 2008

smoking ban update

As you may know, I welcomed the smoking in public ban in 2007, but many people, mainly smokers, saw it as a threat to their local pub. Partner and I frequent two or three pubs and sporadically visit others.

In every case, when speaking to the landlords of these pubs, they have reported no decrease in custom. Indeed, both of our regulars say custom is up, and they attribute this to the increased willingness of some people to sit in pubs and bars now they no longer have to endure the fouled up air; now they no longer have to go home, immediately have a shower and wash their clothes.

The smoking ban does have its downsides. Today was gloriously sunny and quite warm; Partner and I decided we'd like to sit outside our favourite coffee bar, enjoy a brew and watch the world go by. Unfortunately so did all the smokers who live in the area. The air was blue with fag smoke, stank and spoiled the enjoyment of our coffee; the ground was ankle deep in fag dimps. A customer nearby saw fit to knock the ash off his fags by wiping the lighted end on the edge of the table.

It's obvious smokes have no sense of responsibility, are completely inconsiderate, uncaring, can't police themselves and are happy to shit in their own nests. Yet I guarantee when we non-smokers mount a campaign to reclaim the outdoors they'll be up in arms and most indignant.

Have your say              Back to top

• Friday 8th February 2008

orange

My partner doesn't drink alcohol; we both like the pub and spend far too much time there. We visit pubs all over the UK and Partner always drinks the same drink. It's a very simple, down to Earth, no-nonsense, easy to make drink. It's orange juice and soda water, mixed, in a glass. Partner isn't that fussy about what kind of glass, and usually doesn't mind whether its long, tall, pint, half, or comes ready made in a bottle. Partner is even happy to do the mixing if the bar staff fail to weild the swizzle stick.

When I go to the bar and order Partner's drink, I ask for "an orange juice and soda, please". Instead of the simple drink I asked for I often get any manner of drink instead. Often it's orange squash, sometimes mixed with tap water from a jug behind the bar, sometimes it has lemonade, sometimes it's J2O. When I'm presented with something transparent and fluorescent, I say "...no, I asked for orange juice." The highly trained, qualified and experienced bar staff say "it is orange juice" then in response to my confused look, "...oh, you mean fresh orange?"

Now, I can't see an orange squeezer or a bucket of oranges and I know fresh orange juice is as rare as rocking horse crap in your average country boozer. So I say, "Is it in a bottle, or carton?"

"Yes," they say, dragging a 1 litre box of Sainsbury's economy from a shelf under the bar.

"No," I say, "That's not fresh." Now they're looking at me with a confused expression.

"Fresh orange comes from an orange, non-specific 'orange juice' comes from a bottle, a jar or a carton, it can even be 'reconstituted from concentrate'; but that's orange squash." I point to the fluorescent liquid.

I know, I know. I shouldn't give them such a hard time. But, Jesus Harry Christ! this is one of the simplest drinks in the history of innkeeping. How come bar staff don't know the difference between orange juice and the fluorescent chemical cocktail commonly known as squash? It drives me mad.

Have your say              Back to top

• Tuesday 5th February 2008

technophobes

Don't you get fed up with the technophobes? People who can't be arsed to learn the basics of technology and keep reasonably up to date with how things work?

I often feel like I'm the only person who can "work" the DVD recorder, "wire up" the hifi, "program" the heating system. For fuck's sake! It's not rocket science.

Why do people feel proud of the fact they can't use a computer, send an email or operate their point and shoot camera? It's something to be ashamed of nowadays. I'm hearing more and more whingeing about them not being able to access the latest trendy must-have because its only available on-line. These people are prbably the ones who's older relatives complained that books were replacing the spoken word and that wireless was replacing the books and that the talkies were replacing wireless and so on.

Yet it's amazing that these same people are the ones who understand the offside rule, know how to lay a trifecta and can drive a car - a machine which is operated with both hands and both feet and most of your fingers.

Get real, things progress, we build upon the ideas and technology of yesterday. It would be much healthier and more productive to embrace it and learn the basics and stop whingeing!

Have your say              Back to top

• Thursday 1st February 2008

small brains, small spaces

Why must some mothers of young children have such enormous pushchairs? And why do they insist on pushing them into the tiniest shops and gridlocking the whole thing?

It's a stupid and inconsiderate lack of common sense; if the shop has only one aisle and its a meter wide, bringing in a pushchair that's also a meter wide is going to cause havoc. I was in a shop today and yet again some small brained mother did exactly this. All the occupants of the shop had to back up to allow her to reverse the thing back down the shop and out again.

This happens to me all the time. I'm constantly being driven into by these monstrosities, having my knees and shins bashed, or having to wait outside until there's room inside the shop because there's one taking up all the available space.

If I was taking my child out shopping, before I left the house I'd think "Mmm... going shopping. I'll probably be going into some actual shops then. Better carry little Jonny in his backpack..." Obviously, thinking is too much to ask of these people.

Have your say              Back to top