In Love And Death

Crikey

2006-06-09T08:21:00.000+01:00

Some of you may have noticed that there's been a lack of posts recently. This is because my blog has moved. See the post below to find a link to the new one that I actually DO post on! You may want to change your bookmarks or if you subscribe to my feed, change that too.

See you there folks!

It's finally here!

2006-03-22T00:22:00.000Z

For those of you who've been praying for the day to come when this blog would continue the brave crusade, for those looking for their saviour to return and lead the righteous battle against the pretenders, for those of you who've been desperately awaiting the new incarnation of the greatest blog in the blogosphere, for the children and disciples of the Jesus of Suburbia, like lost sheep without their shepherd...

Oh sod it, if you're interested, this blog has now moved to HERE

It's been a while

2006-02-25T21:19:00.000Z

...since I last posted.

And basically this is for several reasons, I won't bore you with all of them, but mainly it came down to the fact that the poll question over blogging platforms was not heavily voted upon. Whether this is because it was boring or whether it's because I made a request to only vote if you'd used either platform, that I don't know, however what is crucial is that without the outcome of that poll I was really at a loss as to the next step for me and this blog.

It's been over a month since I initially decided to transform this blog, and in fact it'll be two months in exactly a week, but by then I fully expect to have begun posting in my new blog (I'll post a link on here when ready to go). I think it was well worth a two month hiatus to finally get everything back on track, my life's been a bit of a nightmare recently as well so it's probably worked out for the best.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

2006-01-29T12:42:00.000Z

And so we come, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, to the moment you've all been waiting for. In a fiercely contested poll I asked you, the wise and gracious readers of my blog (or, and let's be honest here, more specifically, those random Blog Explosion members who stopped long enough whilst surfing for credits to actually vote) to vote on the new name for my brand spanking new blog. And you did, in your droves, and whilst some options were roundly rebuffed, receiving little or no support, and whilst "Strawberry Fields" was leading the chasing pack by a large margin initially, in the final countdown it turned out to be a close race.

One by one they fell, the margins between each option getting narrower and narrower, and slowly the lead that the Beatles-inspired choice had accumulated was eroded. In the main event it was a fatal four-way between "The Bitter End", "Electric Boogaloo", "The Pontificating Id" and the legendary "Strawberry fields". For days they were inseperable, until finally both "Electric Boogaloo" and shockingly the erstwhile leader, "Strawberry Fields", began to lag behind and were eliminated.

To put you all out of your misery, the winning name, and the name of my new blog, is "The Pontificating Id". It finally beat out "The Bitter End", which was ironically enough the working title for this blog, by 14 votes to 11, a convincing margin. Thanks to all who voted.

My next dilemma is the choice of blogging platform. As I said previously, the whole point behind the move is to look for a category-organised blogging platform, it's essential given the mercurial and multi-faceted nature of this blog. For evolution to take the next step will require categories. Moveable Type, whilst highly recommended, is not an option. It's both too complex and also will require me to pay for hosting and at present that is not only not an option I want to explore, but also one I can't afford to explore. I like Wordpress-based platforms as I can use categories, in a relatively user-friendly environment, perhaps a little more complex than Blogger but I've already outgrown Blogger so I need the next step up.

I've so far located two free, self-hosted Wordpress-based services online (if you know of any others, let me know). These are Wordpress.com and Blogsome. Neither requires hosting, and both will provide categorisation. However Wordpress.com currently doesn't allow template modification, whereas Blogsome does. Whilst Blogsome is using an older version of Wordpress software to function, this actually allows Blogsome to offer template modification with no added security risk to their hosting servers, whereas Wordpress.com are struggling with rolling out template flexibility without risking the security of their servers.

If you can recommend any other category-based platforms, feel free to leave a comment. Otherwise I'd really appreciate a vote on the poll on the left, but only if you've used, or know someone who's used, either platform. Please don't vote if it's not based on actual experience, or based on love for your own platform without having tried out either Wordpress.com or Blogsome.

Thank you.

It's kinda like Survivor...only...not

2006-01-17T23:13:00.000Z

The competition is hotting up in the poll to decide the name of my new blog. Helm's Deep suffered the ignominy of being the last potential name left with no votes at all, and has been eliminated from the contest. I will continue to eliminate "the weakest link" until only one name is left. And that name will be the winner. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it?

However, as before, there is no absolute guarantee that the winning name will be the one used. Lots of factors will decide on it, such as the new blog's colour scheme and design, however I will promise that the winning title will at least be the working title, and so long as there are no compelling reasons to over-ride the wishes of the Blogosphere, I will stick with the winner.

So if you haven't voted already, do so!

Name that blog

2006-01-08T19:44:00.000Z

A key thing to consider when starting any new blog is the name. This is something you'll probably be lumbered with for the lifetime of the blog, because although it is possible to change the blog's name, if you want the blog to gain any sort of reputation, some consistency in the blog's name is essential. At least I think so. A kickarse blog name is likely to inspire people to actually read the blog, rather than just skim it when they visit, it's a crucial piece of the Blog promotion jigsaw. Like a corner piece with clouds on it. Or maybe the bit with the dinosaur's face on it. I don't know!

With that in mind I've come up with some names I quite like, but I'm struggling to decide between them. As part of Operation: New Blog Order I made the executive decision to rename the blog; however the New Blog Order operates as a quasi-democracy and I shall give you a say on what the new blog's name will be. There is a poll to the left, and whilst I won't guarantee that the the winning name will be the name for the new incarnation of In Love and Death (which will, after the move, be laid to Rest In Peace), it will certainly play a part in the name-change.

Basically, if you're dropping by, drop a vote, and let me know what you reckon. The feedback's helpful, and all jokes aside, I probably will go with the winning choice anyway. I won't tell you what my preference is, but I do have one. So vote damn you! How often does a father allow you to name his baby? Take me up on a once in a lifetime opportunity to be part of something bigger than yourself, something so immense it might alter the course of humanity forever.

Or maybe not.

It's blogging, but not as we know it.

2006-01-05T11:34:00.000Z

Operation: New Blog Order is well underway and as the first post in this oh so special series today I'm going to write briefly about the New Years resolutions I made about my blogging. These will form the New Blog Order Manifesto, a blueprint of the New Blog Order that will rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of this now burnt-out hub of a blog.

Now previously I had, with all the best will in the world, endeavoured to post daily, or if not daily, every other day, but regular readers (hah, what readers?!) will know I sometimes got snowed under with a backlog of blog posts to edit. So my first resolution and the first clause in the New Blog Order manifesto is that whilst I will still hold back drafts for editing, I won't allow editing to hold up a post. All posts will go up within 24 hours of being first drafted, without fail, even if the quality suffers marginally (let's face it, they're never that good to begin with!). Not only will this ensure a regular stream of content, but in a way, less editing makes the content fresher and more raw.

Clause Two is closely related. When I began blogging I spent a fair old amount of time surfing other blogs, reading a lot of content and being inspired and entertained. Recently this has lapsed and did create a situation whereby I was lacking inspiration, and looking back over recent posts, I think this has become apparent. I think some of the posts, whilst decent, lacked that spark that others had, those that were actually inspired. So I will ensure that I dedicate an allotted amount of time every day to reading other blogs, and ensuring I keep "current" with some of my favourite blogs that I've not actually checked recently (oh woe is me!).

However this time will not be merely "reading" time. I will be timetabling my evenings a little more, plotting out my commitments and working out exactly how much time I have after taking out time for my girlfriend, dinner and other essentials. I will then allocate a set amount of time, half of which will be spent reading other blogs, half of which blogging. So within the New Blog Order manifesto, Clause Two will have a sub-paragraph two, requiring me to dedicate time every day to trying to produce some content. And not just any content, noooo, interesting content. Ok, semi-interesting content. Ok, fine, boring, but regular, content.

Content is a curious thing (it makes one man weep, makes another man sing). Trying to ensure a regular stream is important, but at the same time, the quality has to follow too. I think I've gotten too wrapped up, and perhaps to an extent this is born out of being "typecast" by early posts, in trying to develop long posts, and so the content has tended to be a topic that I can actually write a lot about.

The problem is, the more you write, the longer it takes to read it, the easier it is for someone to be put off. Worse yet, if you write all your thoughts, you leave yourself little to explore another time. So as part of my commitment to trying to product content every day, I will also endeavour for this content to be "fresh". I won't always look to write a lot, but always will look to write something inspired, be it long or short. A short but sparky blog post is far more fascinating than a long windy but dull post.

So to summarise, this is the New Blog Order Manifesto as it currently stands:

CL 1: Blog drafts to go up within 24 hours. If possible, avoiding editing at all.
CL 2(1): Dedicated blog reading time (use for pleasure and inspiration)
CL 2(2): Dedicated blogging time (aim for a post a day if possible)
CL 3: Quality of content over quantity. Keep content fresh, don't get bogged down with size or quantity, focus on being inspired.

If anyone, upon reading this, has any other suggestions that I should add to my New Years Blog Resolutions, and ultimately to the New Blog Order Manifesto, please share them!

Wow it's been a long time

2006-01-04T00:38:00.000Z

It's been over a month since my last update but there is a really good reason for this, well, several actually. And apart from the Alien abduction one they're all really good excuses I promise!

The truth is right around the time of the last post I began contemplating the future of this blog. When I began it, it was a very personal blog, and some people liked this, probably my nearest and dearest who liked the opportunity to spy into the recesses of my mind and hear my true thoughts. I did find the odd stranger, though, who actually found my mundane existence interesting.

This was actually a reflection of what got me into blogging in the first place; my suicide attempt. A friend advised me to seek blogging as a form of release to get out my emotions before they overwhelmed me. He knew I liked computers and would probably be more likely to keep a diary if it was online, plus it meant I might find people who'd been through similar experiences and be able to share.

I began a blog called The Ego Speaks, some of you may have read it, but it's doubtful. Sadly due to incessant invasion by apparent friends whose actions caused me more stress, I realised it ceased to serve the initial function it was intended for. I then began a secret blog (secret from my friends, I mean) called The Napoleon Complex. In the end laziness was what caused that blog to bite the dust, I never really kept up with updates (and how ironic, then, that this little blurb should be so overdue). And then after the depression began to get the better of me again, I started this little baby.

This is actually my longest running blog to date, over 6 months, and that's something I took a great deal of pride in. I dedicated a lot of time to it, and actually showed good persistence to keep it up. And when the depression began to subside and I ran out of personal topics to discuss, I managed to broaden my horizons and turn what was, in essence, a personal diary, into a true web log.

However looking back over the most recent archives I can see that the blog went through a personal stage, and then a political one, then a sports one and has actually ended up turning into a big mishmash of topics. So I decided it was time for a change, no, I'm not giving up blogging, in fact, I plan to be even more dedicated to it (that's one of my New Year's resolutions). What I'm planning to do, and have been since mid-December, is to move the blog to different platform, one which will allow me to categorise and perhaps make sense of the chaos.

What's happening is evolution. I think it's time for this blog to take the next step up. The new blog isn't ready, and this is basically because Christmas and New Years came in between (and with New Years Eve being my sister's 18th birthday, it was extra big this year). The sheer stress and busy-ness of this time ensured I lacked enough real quality time to get everything ready. I have chosen the platform, and ensured the domain, and I'm currently in the process of designing the template.

I'm going to blog on here about the development of the new blog, and about this new change in my blogging outlook too, a project I shall now call Operation: New Blog Order. And then when my precious is ready for its unveiling, I shall release her upon the world.

I love my Video iPod

2005-12-10T22:43:00.000Z

Apple's newest addition to the iPod range is awesome. I just bought one for a bargain price and I'm pleased to announce it's well worth every last penny of it. I'm over the moon with my newest gadget, although I must confess, had I not got it for just over half the retail price I probably wouldn't currently own one, given that I was perfectly happy with my iPod mini before. Given that 6gb was more than satisfactory, 60gb is going to OWN.

I wasn't quite sure how the iPod video would fare when I first heard about it, I predicted that the video quality would be awful, that the small screen would make viewing it a real pain in the arse (or rather the eyes) and I'd heard terrible things about the battery life. Now whilst it's true, several battery tests suggest that the PSP will clock out 7 and a half hours on video playback, compared to 2 and a half on the iPod, the biggest memory stick I've seen for the PSP is 2 gig compared to the massive 60 gig storage of the iPod. This makes a massive difference in terms of what you can store, and the quality of the iPod's screen is actually superior, even though it's smaller. I'd say my earlier fears about the quality of the viewing experience were incorrect.

If you use Quicktime Pro to convert your videos then yes, it can take up to 12 hours to convert, so I've read, but Videora make software that can convert any PC format of video into suitable video for many different portable media players, including both the PSP and iPod. The iPod version takes a lot less time than QT Pro and whilst I've not done a conversion with the PSP version yet (as I don't own a PSP) I'd be surprised if the PSP version fares much better. The compression rate seems perfectly fine, a 620mb mpeg converts down to 400mb in mp4 format, which, given the massive 60gb at your disposal, there's plenty of room for. I think when it comes to raw storage the PSP will always struggle against the iPod, but then again, this massive storage comes at a price; the reduced battery life.

It's really a trade-up in that regard, you lose a little bit of battery life but gain a lot more storage. Personally, since I use my iPod on the tube journey to work and then back again, I find the battery life is just about fine, but for longer journeys I could see the benefit of the PSP. I plan to actually buy myself a PSP too, and get the best of both worlds, but if you're choosing one or the other, it really is a toss-up as to which one is the one for you.

The battery life of the iPod can of course be improved by using a battery pack, and is probably a situation that will be improved quicker than the PSP's storage issue. The reason for this is that the PSP isn't being marketed as a storage device, and the planned pre-recorded UMD market will rely heavily on the fact that the PSP can't store a lot of video. Neither Apple nor Sony is oblivious to the fact that their systems will be used to play pirated material, and if Sony intends the pre-recorded UMD market to succeed, it needs to kill off potential piracy, and trying to keep storage potential low is the way to secure that. Apple, however, will want their device to fare better in terms of battery life, and currently it's beaten silly by the PSP and Creative's Zen Vision media player.

That said, is any more than 2GB really that necessary? You can fit a decent film onto that no problems, and if you have several memory sticks, there's no reason why you couldn't juggle several of them around. However one of the main reasons behind the success of MP3 players has been that they don't require external storage media; the player and the storage media are as one unit. This is why MP3 players have overtaken portable CD players despite the fact that the latter will probably deliver better battery performance and almost certainly better audio quality.

Personally I think if you want a media player, the iPod Video beats the PSP, but if you want a gaming device, that can offer media playback, the PSP is a nice bit of kit. However, if the Zen Vision was more reasonably priced it would be my choice, especially if you're more into the video than the music aspect. Creative's offering doesn't quite have the same battery life as the iPod when it comes to music, but when it comes to video the Zen Vision craps all over the iPod Video.

Truth be told, they're all nice, and if I had enough money, I'd have one of each. I just love my Video iPod and wanted to share that with the world. Or rather the two of you that ever actually bother reading this blog on any sort of regular basis. Hi you two!

skype v Google Talk

2005-12-08T22:42:00.000Z

In yesterday's Metro there was a big focus on skype. I've seen a lot of hype surrounding skype now filtering its way through the mass media, everywhere and anywhere, and in my field of work I'm seeing things like internet phones being marketed based on their compatibility with skype. And yet for those in the know skype is old hat, hell I knew about skype ages ago and I'm hardly very tech-savvy (this site's design is proof of that!). I'm sure even Google Talk, my personal fave right now, has been relegated into the same category by the real whizzkids who probably have some new, relatively unknown, piece of software, that is to both skype and Google Talk, what pissing in a flushing toilet is to relieving yourself in the woods.

Where to start? Well I might as well begin with the product that's getting all the rave reviews in the mainstream media. Skype is rather pants. No, scratch that, skype just is pants. The quality might be better than predecessors like Teamspeak (which is still the daddy when it comes to hosting a conversation between massive groups) but compared to Google Talk, which is still in beta, it's nothing.

I'd been using skype for ages when I first tried Google Talk and I was amazed by the difference, the clarity on both is excellent, but skype suffered a lot more from being "blurred" by background noise. There was a certain sharpness missing from it that the Google product has in spades. Whilst the sound quality on skype is comparable to a standard telephone, the gmail-based software is actually an improvement on standard telephony. Skype makes you feel like you're in the same street as the person you're speaking to; Google Talk puts you right next to them.

And then there's the design. Skype isn't intuitively designed, it's cumbersome, and whilst not difficult to use, and easily customised to make it more user-friendly, it just lacks the sheer accessibility of Google Talk. The latter is far more "tuned in" to what most users want. When you click on a contact in Google Talk it automatically opens an IM window, whereas Skype goes for the call. This can be modified in the options but in truth, if the Google product comes like that "out of the box" why use the inferior one? And that's just one example of many interface design flaws in skype. It's like this; if you can get one free night with either a cheap, STD-riddled street corner prostitute or a high class, absolutely stunning, model-esque escort, which would you pick? It's not like it costs you any extra...

There are other design issues too. Skype looks like it's been put together by a 5 year-old (maybe it has!), and as we'd expect from the boys at Google, G-Talk (as some now call it) looks a far more polished piece of software. I'm not ashamed to have it on my desktop as I was with skype, which looked like a toy. And whilst this might sound silly, the ringing on Skype is annoying and shrill, sounding more like a telephone receiver from the 70s (you know the ones, before touchtone phones?) than a sophisticated piece of Internet telephony. The ringing on Google Talk is by far more preferable, much more in keeping with a cutting-edge piece of software.

Now some might see the fact that Google's product is based on users with gmail addresses as a problem, but I think it's quite the opposite. When you IM someone there's an option to call and an option to directly email them, which just adds to the whole "convenience" argument I put forward earlier. Integrating the software with gmail was a genius idea, not a flaw. Let's face it, whilst gmail (or Google Mail as it's now called in the UK) is still technically in beta, and invite-only, who doesn't have a gmail account? True, at the moment Google Talk is only PC to PC, whereas skype allows calls to telephones too, but I think it's only a matter of time before Google Talk is extended out into the full reaches of internet telephony.

All in all, whilst Google Talk can obviously be improved (proper smileys in the IM system and PC-to-telephone calls being the main two I can think of) it's still in the much earlier stages of its development. The signal indicators (like you get on your mobile) are a great help and allow you to quickly troubleshoot anything that's causing problems. Everything else listed above puts Google Talk on a level above Skype, and that's with a product that's still virtually embryonic.

As always Google comes out on top. Whatever the Google boys put their minds to tends to be a winner. Google came into the search engine market and blew away Yahoo! They entered the webmail market and blew away Hotmail. Now they've entered the Internet telephone market and skype have been warned...

Simply the Best; or was he?

2005-12-06T22:41:00.000Z

George Best (left, collecting the 2002 BBC Sports Personality of the Year's Lifetime Achievement award), footballing legend, a pure genius on the pitch and a man even Pele claimed was the best footballer he'd ever seen play, died on the 28th of November. This is hardly news but I'm not really writing about Best, or how great he was, many people have written that.

When Maradonna claims you're his favourite player, when Cruyff respects you, when you play in a team containing World Cup winners like Charlton and Stiles and outshine them, when you're so influential to your club's European Cup success at the tender age of 22 that you're named European Player of the year, you don't really need your praises sung. No, what I'm discussing today is whether the commotion over Best's death is really deserved.

There really is no doubting Best's footballing talent. Even as an Arsenal fan I can recognise the greatness of the man, even if he was a legend for a club that I abhor. Great players transcend clubs and even national allegiances. Pele is an example (how many non-Brazilians revere him?) and whilst we English hate Maradona for the Hand of God, few of us would take away from the genius of his goal later in the same game. It might've been the goal that knocked us out of that particular World Cup but it was easily the greatest goal ever scored. And in the modern game we have players like Ronaldinho and Arsenal's own Thierry Henry. Chelsea and United fans may hate the Frenchman but every last one of them would recognise his quality.

However George Best was by no means the saint he is being painted out to be. Tragic as his death is, it's unsurprising given the abuse he put his own body through. He's wasted two healthy livers, livers that could have gone to more deserving causes. Everyone knew he wouldn't take the lifeline his first liver transplant gave him, everyone knew he'd drink it to destruction again, but because it was George Best noone cared. Tell that to some poor child who was born with a liver defect around that time and missed out on an organ that could have radically improved the quality of their life. I personally, as a former drink-abuser myself, believe alcoholics (and drug addicts too for that matter) shouldn't be allowed liver transplants until essential and more deserving cases (such as natural or genetic defects) are treated first.

However it's not just that. What he does to his own body is, to an extent, his choice, even if it does have consequences for the NHS. Let's face it, most people needing liver transplants are alcoholics or drug addicts; there are few instances of natural or genetic defects, although they do exist and I still feel pity for anyone who needed or currently needs a liver and didn't actually do it to themselves. In an age when footballers are being held up as role-models, even former greats need to stand up for morality to an extent, and this is where my gripe with Best lies.

In fact, perhaps the pressure to be an upstanding citizen is even more pressing on an icon. I bet more people grew up looking up to Best than Beckham, because even today kids are growing up being raised on the Best folklore. Best's up there with Pele and Maradona, and it's quite shocking that two of those three have done some appalling things to their own bodies, but what seperates Best's conduct from Maradona's is what he's done to those around him.

I disagree that footballers that footballers are role-models, generally speaking, but I do agree that they should be held in higher disregard when they break the law because that's when their conduct does push them into the "role model" cateogory. And when Best beat his own wife, he broke the law, and what's worse, he did one of the most appalling things any man can do. No man should ever strike a woman, and the fact he was a great footballer, and a lovely chap in interviews, a charmer and an icon, none of those things eradicate what he did to Alex.

The truth is whilst Best's passing is tragic, whilst it's a shame, whilst we will remember a legendary player who changed football, whilst, given his career ended at 25, he could have been even better, it's ridiculous how much his death is being covered. Much like when Princess Diana died there's a cult of Celebrity surrounding Best's death. Diana was a serial adulteress, for starters, and yet people conveniently forget this when her name is mentioned; she's been sanctified post-mortem. This happens with celebrities a lot, people forget the bad and remember the good, and the same is happening with Best. Why else would there be such a fuss over the death of a washed-up, ex-con, bankrupt, wife-beater?

The irony of it all is that a man like Kurt Cobain, who, albeit a drug taker, was an actual decent man, who did nothing to harm those around him and stopped taking heroin out of pure love and devotion for his daughter, a man who was savagely murdered and then later degraded by being labelled a suicide, a crime that's still yet to be properly, fully and thoroughly investigated, is remembered for the bad and yet not the good.

Sometimes life's just not fair.

I'm Bewitched

2005-12-04T17:43:00.000Z

So apparently I share musical taste with Nicole Kidman. How disturbing. Now where did I put that 12-gauge? Goodbye cruel cruel world.

Your Musical Tastes Match: Nicole Kidman

What Celebrity Matches Your Taste in Music?

Arise Sir Del Boy

2005-12-02T22:43:00.000Z

David Jason (left), the British comedic actor most famous for playing Del Boy Trotter in the BBC classic Only Fools and Horses, was yesterday honoured with a knighthood. As quite possibly the nation's favourite ever TV actor, it's an honour that was well deserved.

Jason, real name David John White, has been entertaining the British public for 38 years, starring alongside the late Ronnie Barker in Open All Hours, playing the then unknown Catherine Zeta Jones' father in The Darling Buds of May and my personal favourite, Jack Frost in the detective show A Touch of Frost. Many people don't know this but he was also the voice of Dangermouse and Count Duckula, two of my favourite cartoon characters of all time.

The actor also announced that he had married his long-term partner Gill Hinchcliffe at a ceremony in the Dorchester Hotel this past Wednesday. Congratulations to David, on what is no doubt a week to remember. Humble as always he said it had been an honour to meet the Queen. "She said she hoped I wasn't always going to play the same character and I said I hoped I hadn't ever offended her". No David, you could never have offended her; you've done her, and the country, proud.

Also at the palace was Michelle Stead, wife of Flight Lieutenant David Stead who was awarded the Air Force Cross for evacuating sick people from Afghanistan during poor weather. Sadly he was killed earlier this year when his Hercules helicopter crashed in Iraq. Heroes like him are a lesson to those who paint our brave fighting men and women as savages, and look for any excuse to criticise them. I understand people oppose the wars that our current governments have wage, but the mockery of our armed forces is disgraceful and the people who engage in it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And on the same topic, a message to all those who claim that the west is waging a war on Islam; Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, was also knighted yesterday, for services to the Muslim community and building stronger relations between Muslim communities and their neighbours. We don't oppose Muslims at all, I have many Muslim friends, and I know every one of them agrees with me in opposing radical Islamic fundamentalism, as it paints Islam in an unfair light.

£6 million for 12 years

2005-11-30T21:40:00.000Z

I read in astonishment today that a 12 year old New Yorker had a £6million lavish soiree for her bat mitvah. Entertainment included 50 Cent(pictured), Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, Tom Petty and The Eagles, and the venue was the plush Rainbow Room. The legendary club situated on the 65th floor of Rockefeller Center is one of the very best venues for a night out in Manhattan and I remember last time I was in New York how jealous I was of my friends who were going out for the night to the Rainbow Room.

The girl in question is the daughter of David H Brooks, the multi-millionaire founder of DHB, a company that makes body armour for the military. He flew his private jet down to Pittsburgh to pick up Tyler and Perry, paying each of them more than £1 million to perform for his daughter Elizabeth.

The tradition of a Bat Mitzvah, which celebrates a young girl's transformation into womanhood, is a big day in any Jewish family, and many would consider spending tens of thousands on a celebration, but the £290,000 Mr Brooks paid for 50 Cent to perform just 5 songs would eclipse what most families would spend on the entire celebration! And on top of that every guest was given a Goody Bag worth a paltry £600, containing such trivial little gifts as iPods and digital cameras. And here was me getting excited at having purchased a video iPod today!

I don't begrudge him or his daughter the joy that the day brought them, however, and the point of me mentioning this isn't jealousy. I think the wealthy have every right to enjoy their wealth, and it's so great to see them lavish it on their children, who tend to lose out on many of the things most of us take for granted.

See whilst many would call her a lucky girl, I'd say she probably missed out on much of the day-to-day affection and attention you and I received, because often wealthy and successful people pay the price in terms of the amount of time they have to spend working. I'm sure she'd consider herself hard done by, she may even have issues with her father and feel somewhat abandoned. Who knows?

This is why I often get annoyed at people who launch offensives on the wealthy for spending their wealth; things often look very different from the outside. We don't know the details on their lives, and even if they are very happy, and none of these traumas are present, why not just live and let live? Why not concentrate on our own happiness, why is it we can only be happy through someone else's misery?

The reason I brought it up is I'm just imagining being her friend! Despite what I've just said, I might be willing to put up with all the trappings of wealth to meet Steve Tyler! Put it this way, if I was invited to that birthday bash I wouldn't have said no!

For an alternative view.

And the truth shall set you free

2005-11-28T00:29:00.000Z

Irony is a marvellous thing. I've rather gone on and on about the friend I lied to, and the irony of it all is for all her words about honesty and being open, she was neither. My dishonesty was not what destroyed the friendship; hers was.

If you've read my earlier posts you'll recall I wondered if perhaps she'd forgotten how much I cared? Well it appears perhaps it's not that I don't care enough, but that I care too much. I have been told I can "be too much" sometimes by many people, and now I've been told by a reliable source that she suggested I was smothering her.

This makes it all the more ironic that she should thank me so much for being so caring only to then throw that back at me. If you read my last post you know that she's consistently and constantly thanked me for being there, and yet, it appears I'm there too much now. Oh well, guess what? Now I won't be there at all. Which is a shame for her, because she's apparently going through a stage in her life where everything feels awful and she wants to die. Perfect time to lose a supportive friend then, eh?

Now you might say "Thanking you for being supportive wasn't an invite to smother her" and you'd be right. You might also think it's not dishonest. However telling me my conduct was inappropriate moments before breaking off the friendship seems a little unfair. It's a bit hard to modify your behaviour if someone doesn't tell you it bothers them. Oh no, but it gets worse. It seems she would tell me things were fine to my face and then go behind my back and complain about these same things to other people! I asked her if she minded certain aspects of my behaviour and she assured me she didn't and she'd let me know if that changed. I told her if she told me something I did was bothering her, I'd stop doing it.

She didn't. And now she's lost me. It's weird how knowing that has made me feel so much better, but it has. Knowing that it wasn't entirely my fault, knowing that she has to take the lion's share of the blame, it's refreshing, and it also makes me wonder when she's going to finally miss the attention.

Promise me you will not ever leave

2005-11-27T18:31:00.000Z

People always leave. Sadly, it's true, people come and go and sometimes the ones that touch our lives the most are the ones that leave the quickest. The stronger the bond, the greater the pain of betrayal, and given that the friend I lied to earlier this week has trust issues, especially with men, it was no doubt a really hurtful thing. I'm sure she thought I'd never lie to her, and when I did, I was suddenly a new person to her. But I think much worse was the guilt I myself felt, and how this manifested itself. I grew paranoid and afraid and now it seems the thing I was afraid of most has come true; I've lost my best friend.

I might have confessed to another friend that it was hard to be friends with this girl, but I also confessed that I couldn't see a way not to be. Being her friend was hard, given my feelings for her, but a life devoid of her is far worse, especially knowing it was down to my own betrayal. I don't believe I've changed dramatically, I'm weaker now, perhaps, than when we first met, but I'm going through a traumatic time remembering what was going on in my life this time last year. She may feel betrayed but what I went through last year was a true betrayal, and given that last October I tried to take my own life, I can be forgiven a little bit of weakness at this time.

However I was clearing my phone of the text messages I sent her and she sent me, the memory needed clearing anyway, and I looked back and saw the countless times she texted to thank me for my support and my caring. The amount of times she texted me just to say thank you for calling, or to chat, and even up until the last few days, we were close. I made one mistake and since then it seems all those times are forgotten. I stayed up listening to her cry so many nights, and in fact, many of those were crying because she was rejected by another man, and yet, despite pushing my feelings aside to sympathise with her, this is how I'm repaid?

I understand she feels she always has to protect herself, she's been hurt and disappointed so many times before, especially by men, but I don't understand how suddenly we went from being fine to being worse. Looking back over our last conversation, it seemed that all of a sudden she went from being my friend to not. And then, in a state of shock, I got very very drunk and did something very stupid; drunken phonecalls are never a good idea and in the end I said some stuff I really shouldn't have. In fact, I shouldn't have been calling her at all, so there you go.

In keeping with recent posts, here's another poem that I found that seems to fit nicely.

Betrayal
by Dan McDonald

An echo fades into the night,
an eerie mournful sound.
A shooting star disappears from sight,
and I crumble to the ground.
There is no life within this garden;
my sobs are the only sound.
I have poisoned the honeyed fountain
where your love could be found.

Dazed, I stare at the stars above,
my grieving howls fill the night!
Unintended betrayal of love
has hidden you from my sight.
I remember how it used to be
when we shared our fears and delights.
You are a treasured friend to me.
How can I make things right?

Feeling afraid, cold and lonely,
I long to tell you how I feel,
but you don’t want to hear me.
The pain for you is much too real.
Should I back away and build a wall
and block away how I feel?
Or, should I give you a call?
We both need some time to heal.

An echo fades into the night
as our friendship disappears.
How do I know what is right?
How can I ease my fears?
If I do call you again,
would the old wounds reappear?
I can’t stand to cause you pain.
Hurting you again is my worst fear!

All good things come to an end and this was a pretty damn good thing. So I won't cry because it's over, I'll smile because it happened. Just like Dr Seuss said.

Rape Me

2005-11-25T23:16:00.000Z

I was talking about this topic just the other day with some friends, and suggested that with the advent of DNA, the "I didn't have sex with her" defence to rape no longer has any real chance of success if it's untrue. This has lead to the creation of the "consent" defence, whereby a defendant admits to having sex with the alleged victim and then claims that she consented. This defence is almost impossible to overcome, bruising isn't conclusive, and unless there are witnesses to violence preceding the rape, I really can't see any way to overcome this defence.

It's her word against his, and in many ways, all this does in practice is allow an easy circumvention of the rape shield statutes because it puts character in issue. What's worse is that now, in the case of drunken women, it may not even any longer be his word against hers. The question remains then; if you can't prove rape, is the crime just a thing of the past?

We've had judges claim not that long ago that women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped. Apparently if a woman goes out and dresses to attract a man, this gives free license to any man, even one she's not interested in, to force his way into her pants. I realise that rape is a crime where consent is crucial, and unlike murder, where a victim cannot consent to be killed, consensual sex is not illegal. However my understanding was that consent had to be verbally given, not just implied from the way someone dresses. Does this mean if I'm showing off my iPod, and it's stolen, that they won't prosecute the thief if he's apprehended?

Now we have Justice Roderick Evans claiming thaty "drunken consent is still consent". This is absolutely ridiculous, and if that's the case, is there such a thing as date rape? Surely drugged consent is still consent by the same logic? I've just said that as a point of illustration, but scarily enough I worry that the overwhelmingly male judiciary is shifting towards a stance whereby rape may well be a thing of the past. There seems to be a worrying trend towards neo-fascism in the judiciaries of both the US and the UK and I'm sure even the most conservative of us would agree that a policy whereby drunken women do not have the same protections as sober ones when it comes to rape is a policy we don't want to be associated with. It belongs in the middle ages.

It's not even as if the facts suggest that the victim might have consented. The girl is a 21-year-old student at Aberystwyth University and the accused is a security guard at the university, a complete stranger to the victim. They had sex in the corridor outside her hall-of-residence flat, just yards from her bedroom, while she lay there unconscious. On direct examination she told the jury that had she wanted to have sex with him, she surely would have taken the steps to her bedroom, and this seems logical enough. The fact that on cross-examination she was honest enough to admit that she was so drunk that she couldn't remember the events clearly, from which the inference was that she might have consented, should not have led to the judge directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

Had the jury drawn that inference themselves, that would be up to them, they are the tryers of fact and the judge is the tryer of law, and there is no doubt that the decision as to whether she gave consent or not is a matter of fact. Here consent has no real legal requirements, she wasn't required to deed them or whatever, so the judge was not being called upon to decide if certain legal formalities were met to make the consent valid or not. Consent in rape cases is a question for the jury, which is another reason why this decision was wrong.

The defence barrister's words were chilling, claiming that the victim merely regretted having "steamy, exciting, spontaneous sex". That sort of attitude is the one that prevails in the judiciary, and it's something to be worried about. It makes the whole thing sound a lot more sordid, like something she should be ashamed of. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that in a few years rape is no longer a crime of any real significance.

Apparently rape is really just people regretting having "steamy, exciting, spontaneous sex". Tell that to the victims...

Knowing Nothing is Better Than Knowing It All

2005-11-24T02:02:00.000Z

Friendship is nourishment every human being craves and needs, more so than love, because where lovers come and go, friends are forever. This is why lying to a friend is a step not to be taken lightly, because a breach of trust can often be seen as the ultimate betrayal. Today I was on both ends of this situation, both lied to and lied, and in the end, both cost me dearly. Now I will confess, both friendships exist on the internet, but when I found the following poem it seemed to sum up why this was so important to me.

What Would Life Be
by Scott Wheeler, Sr

What would life be with out friends like thee
I'll tell you, like no longer being free.
Imagine what life would be so sad and blue
To go through life without that special you.
And I know we live so far away
Through the internet we are like castaways
Never get to touch or hug you for this I only pray
For some day I hope we can meet
To hug and laugh and dance to the beat
I know this would be a treat
For now this is all I see
Is my good friend here with me
Just think what life would be
Without friends like thee

This is exactly how I feel about the friend I lied to. I know some would say "If that's how you felt, why lie?" but the truth is my motives were entirely pure. I was worried about the impact the truth might have on my friend, she's somewhat fragile and susceptible to feeling needlessly guilty. My concern was that, were she to know I was somewhat upset, and that to an extent that she was a cause, she might feel bad.

With hindsight perhaps I could have confessed to my emotional state, but then refused to discuss why. However when I've previously told her that I've talked over what concerns me with other friends, she got upset and felt inadequate for being unable to help me. Apparently I'm damned if I do and damned if I do. Hence the title of this post, perhaps knowing nothing really is better than knowing it all.

Like then knowing that my other friend was responsible for telling her I was crying. Now had my other friend actually told me that she knew, I would never have lied to her, because any benefit in sparing her feelings would have been lost. Apparently the ease with which I lied to this friend was of concern to her, but considering that my motivation was to protect her, surely it should occur to her how quickly my natural instinct was to protect her and put her interests first.

My interests would have been better served by being honest, and yet she can't seem to see that in not being, it shows that my heart was genuinely in the right place. Yes, I accept that once trust is lost, it's almost impossible to regain, but to hold someone accountable for a well-intentioned lie is somewhat harsh.

However it appears that my friend feels the same way about me, and whilst the trust in our friendship has been harmed, it appears our bond is too strong to be broken by something so small.

Mighty musical Marvin

2005-11-22T23:08:00.000Z

I was on the tube today, on my daily commute into work, which is hardly the highlight of my day, so as usual, I brightened it up by listening to my iPod, Marvin. Yes, I named my iPod, it's a blue mini, and so I named it after the depressed robot from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (depressed...blue...get it?). To be fair I had the volume turned up to full and it was rather loud, just how I like it. My eardrums weren't quite bleeding, which was disappointing, but alas, can't have it all.

Now on a packed train, it was loud enough that people could hear it quite clearly, and had people broken out into song, singing along to the catchy songs...they'd have seriously worried me (and probably been listening to someone else's iPod as I doubt they'd know the words to Funeral for a Friend). I got a lot of funny looks, in fact there was a bit of gossip about it travelling through the train but not one person said something. Until someone did. Obviously. Oh you know what I mean!

A rather well-dressed gentleman gently tapped me on the shoulder, and I removed my headphones and said "Yes?". He asked very nicely if I would mind putting the volume down a little bit. I said no, of course not, and promptly did so. This generated an odd reaction, the assembled onlookers looked from me to him and then back again, and I think I know why it was that they did this rather odd thing. People were probably thinking "Why didn't we think of that?" Which makes perfect sense, why didn't they? Are we so afraid to break out of our comfort zone enough to ask a very simple request from a stranger? It's almost as if people were afraid to talk to me because they didn't know me, much like the phenomenon where noone talks to anyone else on the tubes. People are even afraid to make eye contact on the tubes, it's a big taboo!

Or were they suggesting it was because he was Indian? As you'll note, I hadn't actually mentioned that fact previously, as it wasn't relevant, but being an Indian (in ethnic origin only) myself, perhaps they felt that it was a bit of "He's one of ours" going on? Which couldn't be further from the truth as I don't even think of myself as Indian, I'm just an ultra-tanned Englishman. Honest! Ok, I'm an Englishman whose parents happen to be of Indian descent, but that's all. The truth is, had anyone, of any race, colour, creed or religion, asked me to turn it down, I would have. I'd say gender but I know that if a pretty girl flashed a smile at me and asked me to turn it down I'd have switched it off and chatted her up instead! Well, ok, maybe not, probably just turned it down. And stared at her forlornly, realising she was out of my league. Whilst drooling, of course, because she's just so hot.

Anyway, the odd thing is, those people muttering about me and giving me dirty looks could easily have just asked, like he did. I responded to his request because he was polite in making it, and it was a request, not a demand or an insult. Had someone asked in a similar manner, I'd have done the same thing. Now, of course, if someone was rude to me, or demanded that I turn it down, or made snide remarks or anything along those lines, I'd have promptly told them to fuck off, shown them the finger and gotten back to listening to my music, ignoring them. I respond to politeness and mutual respect, I do not respond to being patronised or told what to do. I pay my fare to travel like everyone else, and if they don't like the music I'm listening to, they can get off and take the next train.

What I don't understand is, why is it fine when the offending loud music is RnB or dance music, but not when it's rock? I can often hear the vocals to RnB music from other people's iPods when I'm travelling and they rarely, if ever, get the same sort of reaction. Is it because it's more "pleasant" to the ear? Says who? I find it painful to listen to, but I usually just drown it out with my own, much more pleasant, music. Is it because rock music is so offensive? In what way? I find most RnB or Garage music to be an assault on my ears. Is it the swearing? What, and Eminem doesn't swear? Don't get me wrong, I actually like Hip Hop, and I like Eminem, but to suggest that rock music is offensive or in any way "lesser" to any other genre is degrading.

But that's fine, rock music has always been about being outcasts and misfits, and it'll never change. If I can change just one attitude or perhaps even educate the Great Unwashed in what good music is, then it's all worth it.

Loving you hating me

2005-11-21T23:34:00.000Z

Thanks to Soft Cell for the title. My topic today is hate on the internet, and it's largely based upon a bad review I got at Blog Explosion. I don't actually mind getting bad reviews, it's constructive criticism, and the fact that someone gave me 1/5 on all aspects of my site was fine, people are entitled to their views. What struck me as being a little odd, however, was that I was rated as a "Good Mommy/Daddy blog" when I'm neither, until the CSA inform me otherwise! Seriously, if you're the mother of one of my illegitimate love children, I'm afraid you signed a waiver, don't come crying to me! All jokes aside, clearly this was the result of someone having some issue with me online, "hating" me if you will and seeking vengeance. Just seemed a bit petty and silly and it got me thinking...

Why do so many people take things so personally on the internet? So someone says something you disagree with, they're just a faceless person in front of a computer somewhere out there in the world, you don't know them, so why take things so personally? What, is your skin thinner than Kate Moss and Posh Spice's lovechild?

I get sworn at and berated by people on the telephone all day as part of my job, if I took every single one personally I'd never get anywhere. I did used to get frustrated, I think it's only natural when someone hangs up on you mid-sentence, but then I realised; I don't know them, if they hang up, their loss.

What I don't get is how when someone loses on Battle of the Blogs at Blog Explosion they get the hump with people who beat them and then go around voting against the blog that won every time it's up. Why bother? Why take it so personally? It's like people who have vendettas on online forums.

If you've ever joined one, you'll always notice "cliques" and people within different groups not talking to each other, and in fact, actively seeking to insult and put down other people because they're "enemies". It might seem strong I should use such a word, and it is, but it's really quite often an apt word. It's almost like people haven't grown up from the playground days back at school.

I get that people cause frustration online, and sometimes it boils over, but it's the sheer depth of the feeling that puzzles me. Perhaps we as a society are so bent on conformity that we don't allow people to actually express and release their pent up tensions out there in the real world, and in the end, people find that the only place they have the power to release those is online.

I think to an extent people feel so lacking in control over their lives that the control the internet allows you to have over anything you like is like an aphrodisiac. Or maybe it's just that these people are cowards, people who wouldn't say boo to a goose in the real world but when hiding behind a level of anonymity usually reserved for those in witness protection, they finally have some courage.

Perhaps the internet should come with an offer label "Join now and get a free set of balls!"

Harry Potter and the Craze of the Cursed Cretins

2005-11-19T23:31:00.000Z

When I heard the craze around JK Rowling and her "magnificent" masterpieces, despite my better judgement suggesting that the only fantasy author to not come off as a JRR Tolkien quasi-plagiarist is Terry Pratchett (who took an entirely different direction, and has admitted he did so because he felt Tolkien was so good that the only way to go was to write comic fantasy), I read the first two books in the series. I was severely disappointed, and after that, I refused to give in to the Harry Potter phenomenon because it's the sort of thing only a cretin could enjoy.

Imagine my chagrin, then, when people whose opinions I normally respect are ranting and raving about Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, having just seen it at the cinema. It would be one thing if it was pre-pubescents, children, or chavs who were expressing these sorts of opinions, but it's not! It's well-educated people, often people who often show a level of discernment for the high brow in life. Those who would probably have read Tolkien when they were children as opposed to the cretins who're reading it for the first time as adults because of the blasted films (which weren't that great).

It's almost been enough to get me to break my boycott. Temptation is a powerful mistress, just ask any adulterer, alcoholic or gambling addict, and sometimes the will is weak. Thankfully someone whose opinion I truly do respect gave it the thumbs down and that's restored my sanity. Which I'm grateful for as if I'd actually gone to see the bloody thing I'd have felt unclean for the rest of my miserable wretched life. Thankfully I didn't part with my hard-earned money to see JK Rowling's awful books brought to life. Those who did...haha...OWNED!

Seriously though, how can people enjoy reading books that are so clearly written for a child, that show no verve or talent whatsoever? Perhaps it's the simplicity that works though, simple things for simple minds. It's a shame that those who're intellectually challenged choose to remain within their own boundaries, never daring to step outside of those and actually try and challenge themselves. Reading is supposed to be about learning, broadening your horizons and language, not stifling it. Then again, the chavs were the ones who never enjoyed learning at school, preferring instead to be vacuous but popular. It’s a shame that in today's society we value fame (and its lesser cousin, popularity) as more important than intelligence. It will bring the downfall of our generation, I tell you.

And surely if Harry really was blessed with magical powers he could make himself look less like a knobby, spotty, twatty geek and actually get into Hermione's pants more often? Such a waste...then again, maybe he's after Ron?

(Thanks to Sven Central for the picture!)

Shutterjunkie review

2005-11-17T22:11:00.000Z

I normally hate photoblogs. This is simply because not enough of them feature pornography. Preferably naked women engaging in sexual acts with other naked women. But I make an exception for Shutterjunkie

Of course some of you may have noticed I've mentioned that blog before. And then rented my blog out to the same blog. Now of course this is all part of an elaborate plan to get into Jem's bed but since her other half is the host of that site, I probably have more chance of having my kneecaps shattered by the aforementioned boyfriend than getting the gorgeous and extremely talented photographer into bed.

All jokes aside, the blog really just is that damn good. It's well designed, presumably because Jem's other half does all the technical stuff, leaving her to get on with what she does best, which is take some bloody brilliant photographs. I'm not kidding when I say she's talented, go check out her pictures for yourself. This girl will be a major photojournalist one day, so get on the bandwagon now and be able to say you've watched her career blossom from its humble beginnings. Be there from day one!

I suppose the fact it's custom-designed also helps, the look is truly unique because it's entirely customised for her, as opposed to hiring a designer (who will often use a specific "style" that you will see replicated) or using a standard template. Plus, unlike my paltry and pathetic effort at a customised template, it actually looks good!

The photographs are not only well taken, they're well edited, it's regularly updated (daily) and there's a little brief explanation behind every photograph. Plus it's a real photographer's blog, everything a photoblog should be, because it describes the equipment and techniques used, as well as various stats (which mean nothing to me) about the way the photograph was taken. Or something.

I'm not sure how many times I can say this, but it's a really amazing blog, and the only reason I can think of that people didn't click on it while the poor girl was renting my blog is that her blog is far more popular than mine. I'm sure that more people who read hers have stumbled onto mine than vice-versa.

CHECK THIS BLOG OUT. Or I'll send the boys round. Ok, it'll just be little Jimbo. On his tricycle. Juggling some oranges. Now tell me that isn't scary!

The Greatest Show On Earth

2005-11-15T22:08:00.000Z

Ok, maybe not, but Taste of Chaos was still an amazing night. For those who aren't aware what that is, click the link! It's basically a one-night "festival" which is currently on a worldwide tour and hit London on Sunday, playing an added date last night, which is what I went to see.

The night featured several acts, most of whom, I must confess, were pretty godawful. Reggie And The Full Effect opened, and whilst I hadn't heard of them before I went to the gig, they were surprisingly not bad. Better than your average opening act, anyway, quite heavy, but thankfully, despite having been around for donkey's years, they didn't seem to take themselves too seriously. I was pleased to see that they appreciated their standing compared to the other bands on the tour, which sadly some opening acts fail to really do, despite words to the contrary. However their set was nothing to write home about, a decent mood-builder but really nothing more.

The show really kicked off when Story of the Year got on stage. The set was tight, they pretty much chose the very best songs they could have done, the harder more gig-worthy material, and frontman Dan Marsala was really giving it every last drop of energy he had. The crowd really got into it, presumably a lot of the fans were there to see Story, since they were being talked up even in the queue outside, and they're quite a relatively unknown Emo band (which, after all, is what all true Emo kids crave.) Bands like My Chemical Romance get slated (though not by me as I love them) for being too "mainstream" but with the level of anonymity Story have in the UK music scene they can't be accused of the same. It was pretty much an awesome set; great performance, great crowd, perfect.

Rise Against were pretty good, as I expected them to be, but it seemed as though the crowd took a long time to get warmed to them. I'm not sure why this is, they seem to have been slated a lot out there on the internet, and it could be that being a more typical punk band they didn't fit the emo crowd as much as the other acts, but the odd thing is once they got going, the crowd really enjoyed it, and the circle pits were mad. I think it's a real shame they didn't get the reception that I felt their performance deserved. Definitely a band I want to see again, preferably on their own so that the crowd are fans.

The biggest "disappointment" of the night were Killswitch Engage. I say that with a level of sarcasm because I never had great expectations of them, having heard their material I thought it'd be an awful set, because they're no talent wannabes. They have nothing unique about their sound whatsoever, and it didn't help that the lead singer lacked any energy at all. Their set was lifeless and dull, the music should more appropriately have been called "noise" and if it wasn't for Bert McCracken (lead singer of The Used for the uninitiated) coming out to get the crowd going, their set really would've been entirely lacking in memorable moments. However Bert, as always, stole the show, and the crowd's adulation of the crazy frontman only served to whip them into the sort of frenzy that I thought Killswitch might get them in by themselves. That was the disappointing aspect, I knew the music would be awful, but I expected that the moshing would be good, and truth be told, without Bert's intervention it really wouldn't have been.

Bleed the Dream were scarily awful, given the billing they'd been given. They were so bad I won't even mention them anymore, except to say that The Used should've been given Bleed The Dream's slot to play a longer set. And moving onto The Used, having seen them back in February I had high hopes for a special show. Sadly, they were a tad below their best. I'm sure some of this had to do with the length of set they played, and the fact that they probably had the best back catalogue of material to play out of all the bands on the tour. On that basis I'd have had them headline the show, had I not seen how great Funeral were live, but I'll leave that for a moment.

However I put some of the blame at the door of Killswitch, because poor Bert wasn't even a shadow of his usual self. He was really energetic during the Killswitch set but he seemed relatively sedate during The Used's set. He still cracked his usual jokes and still exhuded everything a great frontman should, but his usual jumping around the stage like a madman antics were sorely missed. Perhaps the length of the tour, and Warped before it, and then their own band's tour before that is finally catching up with him? Whatever the reason, Bert wasn't himself.

However the music was spectacular. It was a bit of a shame that the setlist basically matched the one in February, just truncated, but then I suppose if it ain't broke, why fix it? Even better were the crowd, who lapped up every offering by Bert and spat it back with even more energy, more than making up for the frontman's slight lethargy. The mosh pit got absolutely crazy, and in fact people started doing running jumps off the barricades to crowd surf, which was a bit too crazy as a lot of people were injuring their necks as people just landed hard onto the crowd. It was bloody stupid, not funny and definitely not cool. Other than that little period of time, and the several times I almost lost my glasses under the crowd, it was a great set.

The best set of the night, however, was Funeral for a Friend. Now my sister and I disagree on this, but I swear Dan Marsala came out with Funeral. Now if anyone was at Taste of Chaos yesterday at Brixton, please confirm if he was singing with Funeral for a Friend or not. Anyway, the set was killer, really tight choice of songs, Escape Artists Never Die and of course She Drove Me To Daytime TV featured, and were particular crowd favourites, but the choice of songs from Hours was the real surprise. There was no Monsters and no All The Rage, which I expected to be in their set, and from Casually Dressed & Deep in Conversation there was no Novella, which I would have predicted would have been a real gig crowd-pleaser.

However Roses for the Dead, Red is the New Black and History all got amazing receptions and all in all, the set was awesome. The crowd were a bit dead by this point, and there was a lot less moshing, but the singing didn't die down one bit, quite the opposite in fact. And the way that Streetcar was introduced was especially creative, getting people to hold their mobile phones in the air, given the introduction to that song is a telephone call. It was all in all a pretty awesome set, and I definitely felt that they stole the show and fully deserved their position as headliners.

And we scored some great merchandise too, so what more can you ask for?

Who's afraid of the big bad gay?

2005-11-13T16:06:00.000Z

Well clearly the Republican party are, with their big push to enforce a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It's bad enough that the consitutional protections of marriage don't even extend to gay people, as they should, because "marriage" is simply a contract between two people who love each other and wish to commit, it has no religious significance whatsoever. Those who believe it does are getting "marriage" and "wedding" mixed up. A wedding can be religious as it's ceremonial, but a "marriage" merely means the bringing together of two elements. Freedom of contract means gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else, and this freedom of contract is constitutionally protected.

What's worse is that now, the same people who argue that abortion is a matter for states, not the federal government, to regulate, are taking the power away from the states when it comes to marriage. So I see, the Republicans believe that States retain powers not expressly delegated to Federal government, except where this interpretation means that the states are doing things that go against "the will of God". You can't have it both ways, either abortion and marriage are both state matters, or they're both federal matters, I see no reason why they're any different to one another.

The truth is that the Republican party is becoming infected by a rising Christian Theocracy, ironic given the war against a nation like Afghanistan which was ruled on similar grounds. Ironic, given that they preach the merits of democracy to the Middle East. It's a neo-Nazi political philosophy, based on a lesson of hate and religious oppression, not disimilar to that preached by Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

It wants to strip away all rights that don't fit in with recognised Christian orthodoxy, despite the fact that legally, it's impossible to justify a Federal ban on gay marriage to be written into the constitution, whilst opposing Roe v Wade. The Christian Right are growing worryingly in power by the day and it's actually quite disturbing. I'm by no means a Liberal, I'd even say I lean towards the Republican side of the partisan divide, but the Christian Right within the party do worry me a great deal.

Whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?

Why oh why?

2005-11-11T21:18:00.000Z

I've never understood this phenomenon. It drives me up the wall, and has now twice meant that instead of being able to sit comfortably on my commute into work, I've had to either stand, or worse yet, be crushed up against the door. Travelling on the tube in this fashion is no fun, let me tell you, and I was lucky on that occasion to even get back on the train. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.

The phenomenon I refer to is people who are travelling just one stop on the tube and yet insist on moving right down inside the carriage, as instructed. Do these people not realise that those instructions to move right down inside expect the application of common sense? As in, if you're going one stop, allow other people, who are going further, to move beyond you and move "right down inside" whilst you stand by the bloody door!

At least that way a person going nine stops, almost to the line's terminus, doesn't have to get off the train to let your sorry arse off. Nor do they have to back into other people, and draw the ire of those people for squashing back into them. Nor do they have to back so far off as to miss out on the chance of a seat, only for some person who joined at that very station at which your sorry arse is getting off, to slip in between and steal the seat. I've half a mind to tell people to fuck off if they're that deep into the train and want to get off. Walk through me if you can, but I'm not moving.

A similar thing happens on the bus that annoys me too. Why even take a bus if you're only going one or two stops? These are usually within 10 minutes walking distance, 15 at most, are you really that lazy? Or unfit? At this rate we may end up being as obese as our American cousins. Let's learn to walk when we can, it's really not that hard and means someone who has a 10 minute bus journey (instead of a forty minute walk) sees that journey clock out at 10 instead of 15. It also irks me when people argue or talk with the driver when getting on. If you want to quibble about fare, or chat with your bus driver friend, do it on your own time, don't make everyone else late too!

It's all part of the lack of common sense and decency that commuters in London suffer from. I've never been someone who agrees with the comments that Londoners are rude but in this one area, when it comes to the commute, Londoners are selfish, vile human beings in the main, and most without the common sense that they would show outside of the rush hour. My manager the other day referred to being on the tube "with the great unwashed" when going on a customer visit and I now fully agree with him.