Woah, Deep

My flat mate is an absolute cunt.

His favourite book is by Dan Brown.

His favourite film is Planet of the Apes directed by Tim Burton.

His favourite band is Oasis.

He works in Public Relations.

He holidays in Belgium.

He wants to live in Norwich.

I’ve changed my opinion on Sex and the City.  As you would expect, I hate this show.

I used to think this was because of its vapidity or its inherent misogyny.  Or was it that men were disposable accessories, good for comfort when it was needed but ultimately only there to serve as a lesson.

I am not well versed enough in the show to tear it apart completely, but I have watched enough (even the movie god forgive me) to know that I don’t like it.

You may be wondering why I am going on about this now of all times, when the show ended about 5 years ago and the film is already forgotten. 

It’s like drugs or porn, it turns up in someone’s house and before you know it, people are watching it, making excuses for it and I find myself sitting, staring into the abyss with them, my teeth grinding and my fingers tapping as I watch these women ruin everything they have achieved in the past 40 years.  A box set has turned up at my girlfriend’s house.  People are watching it.  People are dying.

Yeah, it does broach feminist topics and it is ‘current’, in the same way that Big Brother is topical and relevant.  But really, it seems to confirm every prejudice that men have about women.  They talk crap, they are fashion obsessed, they really don’t get men at all and hold in higher esteem shitty puns and embarrassing word-play than anything else in the world:

“As I stood there with the discount clothes on one arm, I knew I could not discount my own feelings.” [actual quote]

And that’s what really annoys me about this fucking show.  Ignore the fact that it is a spinal tap on the hope of western civilisation.  Ignore that it is worst piece of feminist writing since Deepthroat.

It is terribly written.  I mean really, it is god-awful.  Horrendous.   Atrocious.  Fuck me it’s bad.  That is what pisses me off about this.  It’s the fact that people will watch and enjoy something that, to me, seems conceived with the notion that HUMANS ARE EVIL and a SLOW AND PAINFUL DEATH VIA THE EARS AND BRAIN is a fitting death.  This, this is the kind of writing Douglas Adams was referring to when he spoke of the Vogon’s poetry.  Writing like this is truly horrific.

Here are some quotes, thankfully taken out of context that I have found on a FAN site.  So these, presumably, are the good ones.

“I'm good at crossword puzzles, I'm not so good at people puzzles.” (Carrie)

“Maybe all men are a drug. Sometimes they bring you down and sometimes, like now, they get you so high.” (Carrie, who is not a teenager)

“I don't believe in the Republican party or the Democratic party. I just believe in parties.” (Samantha, a member of the adult population)

“Maybe the past is like an anchor holding us back. Maybe, you have to let go of who you were to become who you will be.” (Carrie)

Seriously, this is like eating turd.  And you have no idea how many of Carrie’s quotes begin “Maybe…”  An annoying amount is the answer.

Anybody read Watchmen?  Alan Moore was spot on when he included the concept of social retrospection during times of hard ship and uncertainty.  In times of trouble, nostalgia becomes popular, while overly progressive attitudes and a 'futurist' aspect wane.  This is exemplified in Watchmen by the marketing of a perfume.  In the beginning of the novel, during a time of near revolution, discomfort and anger the popular perfume of the time is called 'Nostalgia'.  By the end, these posters have been replaced for a product named 'Millenium', reflecting the optimism and fresh zeitgeist.  It was well observed.

This psychology has given rise to a ridiculous spate of advertisxing campaigns - for example, can anyone tell me who was the first supermarket in the UK to introduce the avocado?  Why the hell would anyone know this?  Even I don't.  But at present, both Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury's seem to be claiming the same thing.  Their TV advertxs are almost identical.  It's all about how they've been around for years, serving the British public and have been awfully progressive and friendly and at some point in the sixties (thanks to them), the avocado was introduced to the UK bringing with it a taste so bland that you'd have to also fork out for a bunch of other exotic ingredients to make the damn thing palatable. 

Then there is the Hovis adverxt.  The one with the kid running home, while a moving montage of events, the suffrage movement, VE Day and the miner's strike plays in the background.  The message being that Hovis has been through the same things we have (and therefore we would like to eat their bread).

More are to come.  Radox's new campaign is also going to feature a tale of its 100 year heritage.  This is not a coincidence.  Why else would anybody care how long a shampoo has been around for? 

So now "New" is no longer a self-evident virtue.  "New" now has connotations of wastefulness, expensiveness, foolhardiness and guilt.

This is understandable, but is it A Good Thing'?  One expects businesses to create or explore current trends in thinking - they can recognise that we are unhappy with the world in general and would wish to exploit that. 

But it's worse - we don't see recovery in sight... in fact, do we even want recovery?  Do we want to revert to the status quo of inflation and a lunatic economy?  Probably not, but do we want to become introverted, feather our nests and comfort ourselves with our own meagre but sufficient surroundings?  The attitude of 'fuck it' that over 60% of us said to the European elections, as well as to all the banks and big businesses and governments is all well and good but then we can't expect them to pull us out of think funk either.  If a man pushes you in the river, don't expect him to pull you out (unless your plan is to pull him in as he pulls you out, but then you'll find you're alone on the shore and nobody wants your help and this analogy isn't working).

Hopefully, we won't be throwing out the baby with the bath water.  We've allowed a massive pile of garbage to build up in the corner of kitchen that desperately needs to be got rid of, but underneath it all there's a nice metal swing bin, a double wall socket and this analogy doesn't work either.

I suppose that's why I try to remain positive.  Banks and governments may be incompetant, but WE aren't.  So don't hold back on their behalf.  We're not gonna slow down cos they fucked up.  We're just gonna have to circumvent them somehow.  Prove we don't need them, so next time they come and push us into the river, we pull a vaulting-pole out of our bum and leap over onto the other side and that analogy kicked ass.

One can often receive a heavily weighted view of the world if one spends too much time on blog land.  The reason for this is because I think a lot of people started blogging as a way of getting things off their chest, so ‘rant’ entries are fairly common.  Combine that with the fact that many of us blog from work (or as a resulyt of chronic unemployment) and everyone can come across as miserable old sods.  Me included, don’t worry. 

But I try to make an effort at being up beat and cheerful, especially when there’s so much stuff to gripe about.  It’s important to keep an equilibrium!

First of all, there’s always the funny side.  There’s the funny side of the Tube strike, the funny side of terrible TV, there’s even a funny side of Big Brother if you discount the fact that it’s in its tenth year and it actually still exists.

There’s the funny side of Obama – his wife is treated as a fashion goddess for no particularly good reason as far as I’m aware.

There’s the funny side of Gordon Brown – that weird thing he has with his mouth is quite funny.  And you know, once he leaves, imagine all the demotivational picture memes that will crop up with phrases like “Worst Successor Ever” or “Be Careful What You Wish For” written all over them.

I am sure you can see the funny side.  As a matter of fact, I think it’s funny just to try to see the funny side of things.  It becomes a challenge, attempting to avoid slipping down the slope of simply laughing at people’s misfortunes.  This is a no-no.

Alright, so the country might be in a bit of a shambles.  Everyone you talk to is beginning to sound like Richard Littlejohn, exclaiming that the whole country, nay the planet are all going to hell in a hand cart and you couldn’t make it up.

But there is beauty in that!  Don’t despair!  At least everyone knows we’re up shit creek!  There’s got to be comfort in knowing that.  It shows that people are not as stupid as they make out, it shows solidarity among the normal folk of Britain, it shows that mass media can work as long as we can discern the real from the not-so-real.  And we can.  Gordon Brown is on his way out, and the entire government is in turmoil because we’ve made our voices heard one way or another.  The general animosity towards authority makes me glow with pride.  Look at us!  Don’t “sheeple” me you negative bunch, we know what’s good for us.  Slow to anger, that’s what we British are (except Scottish, who are angry all the time), but there’s still life in us yet!

So the BNP got a couple of seats.  Big deal – the national backlash has been much more impressive.  Isn’t that good?  They won’t do so well next time – look what happened in France when Le Pen did marginally better than he was supposed to.  The French came out in droves for the second vote and put that little dream to rest.  We can do the same with the BNP.  Pfff, I mean look at them.  Hitler claimed that his Third Reich would last a thousand years.  That little dream only lasted 12 years and he ruled all of Germany.  The BNP have 2 seats in a Parliament so big it’s got time zones.  This won’t last, don’t you worry.

And don’t worry about our creativity either.  Yes, Hollywood keep churning out crappy sequels and prequels and remakes and unbaked films – and Universal Music and Sony keep signing shitty pop acts whose lyrics make alphabet soup look worthy of publication and whose music is so Urgh and Fuck that we can barely allow ourselves to listen… but there’s a lot going on besides.  All you have to do is be willing to find it.  Support them, investigate.  There’s an enormous amount of music being made at the moment, young hip bands who, if you can ignore the sun glasses and bracelets, have a lot to offer.  Film makers with awesome productions, fascinating ideas.  Go and find them.  Next time you go to the cinema, go to the local independent.  Read subtitles.  And if you need your Michael Bay fix (I know I do) download that shit.

I mean, I could be depressed about Terminator Salvation.  So far I have seen childhood loves – Terminator and Indiana Jones get raped by sequels – but hey, see the funny side.  Visit www.the-editing-room.com and get it off your chest.  Yeah Terminator Salvation sucks, but it’s been worth it simply for getting to know Christian Bale better via a conveniently recorded weird English/American accent rant thing.  Plus, I’ve heard the lighting on the new Terminator film is brilliant.

I don’t think we need to start taking the BNP seriously.  Sure, they got a coupla seats in the European Parliament (amongst the THOUSANDS) and they have been making a lot more headlines recently, mostly spread with a thick lair of condemnation from the media.  But they’re still a small party but because of their views, make a lot more noise than is proportional to their size – like any lobby really.

No, we don’t have to take the BNP seriously, but I think we have to take their voters seriously.  Let’s not be unfair, they clearly have concerns and it’s possible their concerns are legitimate (although I balk at the idea of some concerns being labelled as more legitimate than others).

For while those who vote BNP can be labelled as racists, do we actually know why they voted for them?  Do we know how many others would have voted for them if they’d been unafraid of stigma or simply felt it wasn’t a wasted vote?

Let’s not patronise them either by suggesting that they are either too stupid to know better or that by voting for the BNP, it is simply a dig at the current Labour government – a tactic used by those in power I am sure to down-play what could be real concerns for these people.

In actual fact, I don’t really have any idea what the BNP stand for.  All I have is what I have been told (by non-BNP members), which is that they are nothing more than a single-issue party whose central agenda is racially motivated.

But do you have to be racist to be anti-immigration?

To me, it seems unfair to ask.  For a start, it begs the question that immigration is a race issue.  It is a scoundrel’s refuge to hide behind the polarising effect that the race-card brings to the table.

Let’s be pragmatic here.  Let’s not get caught up in the romance of both sides – neither the love affair with patriotism nor the love affair with socialist dreams of free movement and universal liberty.  Both are disingenuous.

I believe in the freedom of movement.  All things being equal, people ought to be able to live where the heck they choose – this planet belongs to us after all.  I know if I’d lived only a few centuries ago I’d have immigrated to the US.  I’ve been to California – it’s awesome.  If I’d lived 2000 years ago I’d have left the frozen wastelands of the North and moved south into the prosperous and peaceful Empire of Rome.  It was also awesome.  See, what people often don’t realise about the Barbarians who were constantly being total dicks to the Romans was that they weren’t trying to destroy the Roman Empire, they were simply trying to get a piece of that sweet sweet ass.

But, such was their ferocity in pursuing that dream they ended up, like a couple of drunken frat boys at a house party, ruining it for everyone.  Or you can blame it on Christianity, but I’m going for the men with beards and axes.

But that’s just it.  All things are not equal.  Celebrating the fact that some countries suck and others (i.e. yours) don’t is unpleasant – but pretending that the inequality doesn’t exist is also dumb.

So let’s be pragmatic.  Britain is better than Polanistan.  We know that, but more importantly, the Polistans know that.

So, do we pretend that nobody realises this and allow freedom of movement anyway (and by freedom of movement, I mean in one direction only), or do we act like miserly knob-heads and tell everyone to eff-off?

Let’s say Polanistan has loads of oil.  It’s full of the stuff and it’s great.  Britain, which has loads of oil for itself decides it would like a little more.  But without paying for it.  So they build a big pipe-line under the North Sea and through the Shmaltic Sea all the way to Polanistan.  Then Britain starts siphoning off the oil from Polanistan and takes it back to Britain.  Oil in Britain gets lovely and cheap and the oil is happy – it’s being used in a way that back in Polanistan it was never going to get used as there wasn’t the facilities to dig for it, refine it, distribute it and use it as an end product.

I’m sorry for the heavy-handed analogy.  It’s probably quite irritating to read.  But Oil is not a country’s most valuable resource.  In fact, there is no resource quite as valuable in a country’s inventory as its people.  Which is why, when a nation is in dire straits they shut the border (China, Soviet Europe, warring African Nations).

Polanistan (and many other countries) are ‘developing’ (who isn’t?)  To me, it seems a tad unfair that at the moment, these foreigners, eager for work are allowed to leave their country to come and work for us.  For free.  We don’t pay their home nation a dime.  They simply go, leaving a gap in their place – and not just any gap, but a gap the shape of a plumber, or a doctor, or carpenter, engineer or any number of trades that the country they’re leaving would LOVE to have, if only they could give them the work.

Now, it’s easy to be sentimental at this point and consider the human element, try to empathise with the human beings who are trying to win bread for their families.  I don’t want to come across like a stone and yes, it is a common description of the Right that they lack human compassion (thanks Cheney), but there’s a time and a place for sentimentality.

But what’s the alternative?

Both sides seem to have an overall idea that “it’ll sort itself out over time.”

Plan A says that if we allow completely free movement from one country to the next despite their economic differences, eventually all countries will become equal.  I’m not sure how this will happen, except through the following ways:

-          the immigrants, having made their money eventually return home

-          the richer country, via the process of trickle down economics eventually ends up lifting the developing country out of its negative economic situation

-          eventually, the whole world becomes one nation so it doesn’t really matter where you live as everyone has moved around so much borders become obsolete and economic differences become non-existent.

Plan B says that migration should be restricted, that the economic differences between the economic zones (nations) are too great.  But eventually, all countries will become equal.  This is achieved by:

-          forcing the potential migrants to stay at home, where they will eventually pull their country out of poverty

-          trading on an equal playing field puts market forces into motion that will help the developing country to develop.

Plan A forgets that migration is a necessary evil for most people.  In most cases, people don’t want to up sticks and leave their home town, their friends and family and their culture.  They do it because they need to find work or to escape persecution.  Immigration sucks big time.  They’d much prefer it if they could find a job at home.

Plan B forgets that sometimes the conditions in a developing country are such that staying there can often mean a life of unhappiness and misery and surely it is the unalienable right of everyman to live in freedom in the pursuit of happiness?

Is there a third way?

How can we repay a country for allowing (nay, encouraging) their citizens to leave for greener pastures?

http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/06/the_ducks_are_not_mine_david_t.php

http://www.27bslash6.com/matthewsparty.html

In the spirit of Henry Root, this guy has the most hilarious email correspondances. Read at least one of them, they're great.

Alternative Big Brother

I’m not going to watch Big Brother, if I can help it.  The bastard program ends up taking over TV for the summer so you always end up watching part of it.  Then there’s the problem of other people wanting to watch it.  I have tried making a pact with my friends that we won’t be watching it, but I can see the weakness in their eyes. 

They always provide an excuse “but this one’s different”, “something interesting has happened” or “it’s more like how it was originally, more a social experiment…”

I used to think that.  That it was some sort of psychology demonstration.  But now that we’re onto BB10, it’s no longer a ‘fair test’.  There are no benchmarks for normal behaviour.  There’s none of the humility that went with the first one where the contestants and the producers had no idea how watched the program was going to be.  It’s not like that anymore. 

In a way, despite the fact that there are dozens of personalities and manufactured situations, the program is still predictable:

What happens when you lump together a bunch of camera-whores, egoists, thickos and degenerates, representing nobody in their demographic for the nation to scrutinize?  Nothing unexpected what so ever.  You get three months of atrocious behaviour, monumental examples of ass-backwards thinking, wayward morals, baffling motives and screaming.  So much screaming. 

The program should end with a masked man entering the house armed only with a mattock then, following frantic instructions from the baying crowd outside commits a massacre.  The only survivors are those who learn to shut the fuck up, and are left huddled in the corner somewhere, weeping at the carnage and at the penetrative introspection they are experiencing for the first time.

So here’s my break down of the contestants this year, an answer to Channel 4’s own online blurbs provided for each of them.

Angel

Survival of the fittest must be one of the most worn out and knackered clichés ever used when describing Big Brother's many, but in Angel's case it's about as true as you could get. Moving to England from Russia 12 years ago, Angel is a professional boxer and is very self-confident. But she does have a soft side – she runs a keep fit class for the elderly ladies of Herne Hill. Aww, bless. But, never mind that – let's get back to the hard stuff. Angel claims that she is mentally strong and can't remember the last time she cried, and when she was little she wanted to be a detective. She also believes that in the future, there will be a war between fit and unfit people. Okay, so apart from the fact that we know which side she'll be on, does anyone else think her biography sounds a bit like a Terminator screenplay? She's quite ambiguous when it comes to sex too – she can't 'do it' for a month before a fight, but when it comes down to it, she's another one who’s not quite sure whether she's Arthur or Martha. Bring it on…

So apparently Angel is fit.  This, for the copywriter is exciting news.  Oh, and she’s Russian, so that means she’s probably a Communist or a vampire or something.  Nothing else described is the least bit exciting.  Even the writer’s attempt at mentioning something exciting like The Terminator falls flat when it becomes apparent she has no idea what the films are about.  That’s probably what pissed me off the most about this whole write up.

Sophie

Well, if there's one thing that's going to get Sophie noticed it's, well, two things. And apparently, in case you have to know, they are 30GG. Even though she's only 20, she’s already done Playboy and would not rule out having a 'boob job' to make them even bigger. Sophie claims that her proudest achievement at school was failing all her GCSEs. Well, that’s just showing off. When it comes to things she doesn’t like, it's pretty straightforward: boring people, spiders and sand. Okay, we can understand the first two, but sand? Sand? As far as ambitions go, she did want to be Airline Hostess, but realised she didn't like flying. But she did manage to jump out of a plane for charity and has raised over £10,000 for Britain's soldiers. Sophie reckons she's going to be very competitive in the House and confesses to only having one bad habit – smiling all the time. Well, it's better than making soup from kittens.

If there were only five women in the world with fake tits, the fact that one was in the Big Brother house might’ve been cause for excitement.  But that fact that every dumb blonde that becomes famous for a season has had breast enhancement really means it’s not a talking point.  What would have made this so much more interesting is if she was clever.  But no, Channel 4 have pushed the boat out and presented us with a bleached blonde girl with fake tits who is, wait for it – dumb as fuck.

Lisa

On first impressions, Lisa might look a little bit scary. Some people have even said she looks ready to kill, but far from it. She might have more front than Selfridges, but we suspect she’s hiding just as many treasures behind her Mohican, tattoos and piercings. And we might as well get her bad habit out in the open while we’re here – she loves cleaning up. Lisa’s gonna be real popular. Oh yeah. As long as she manages to control her, ahem, urges. Lisa is a very sexual being and talks about sex all the time. To describe Lisa as a sexual predator would be like calling a crocodile a sweet itty-bitty thing. But it’s not all about sex. Spiritualism plays a big part in Lisa’s life and she has all the hallmarks of a genuine, kind individual. Her downfall, she believes, is her lack of confidence. Well, there’s nothing like a Baptism of fire to sort that out once and for all.

Goodness, tattoos and piercings, whatever next?  It feels like 1977!  And someone who likes to talk about sex!  What taboos are being smashed!  Nobody and I mean nobody talks about sex.  There’s nothing on TV about it.  My friends don’t talk about it, I certainly refrain from talking about sex.  I wonder what she’ll teach us?  My indifference is overwhelming.

Sree

A business student from India, Sree won't know what's hit him when he wakes up in the Big Brother House. He's used to sharing a house with two girls - and they both cook for him. Wonder if he'll be able to convince any of his fellow female housemates to do that? When he's not studying for his business masters degress, Sree can nearly always be found on his university campus, probably down the student union bar. Sounds like perfect Big Brother training. This first-class honours grad grew up in southern India, and he thinks England is the safest place in the world. Sree reckons he's the happiest man alive, not that surprising as he’s never had a job in his life.  All he wants is to make others happy. Wonder how long that'll last?

Boring.  As.  Shit.

Rodrigo

Brazilian-born Rodrigo is going to get pulses racing with his cute good looks – and it won’t be just the girls’ pulses he’ll be interested in. No, because ‘our’ Rodrigo is a bit of a swing door, if you get our drift. Look, he’s bisexual, okay? And he’s also very tactile and loves hugging and kissing – culturally, being this close with people is a natural thing for him, but how will his fellow interns react? So, that’s all the nice stuff, now for the not-so-good. If you put a dustpan and brush in his hand, he’d probably have a hissy fit as he hates cleaning. And he’s not keen on cooking either, preferring to live off Pot Noodle and sandwiches. Also, if he’s left on his own for too long, he has been known to pick his nose. And his feet. Eugh! And he farts and blames it on other people. What a charmer. Single at the moment, Rodrigo would like a relationship, but fancies too many people, apparently because in England “everyone is good looking.” Oh Rodrigo you charmer!

Rodrigo has the least ‘pulse-racing’ face I’ve ever seen.  I’ve eaten flumps with more aggression than that dumb-ass smile.  The way the corners of his mouth push into his cheeks makes me want to grate his face off.  Ooh, but he picks his nose!  And his feet!  The man’s barely human!

Freddie

What is Freddie going to make of the Big Brother? The 23-year-old grew up in a stately home, where he still lives, with his family, and four staff. At least he'll be used to busy mealtimes. An aspiring politician, he loves campaigning and doesn't have time for any narrow-mindedness. A self-confessed free spirit, when he's not fighting for some cause or another, he's singing, partying on probably on the pull. He is, by his own admission, a bit of a charmer. And watch out boys AND girls, no-one's immune from Freddie's alpha-male charms.

I can see the producers wringing their hands in excitement at what this toff will bring to BB.  Problem is, he’s an aspiring politician which means he going to be so middle of the road he’ll have cats eyes for nipples.  But oh!  What’s this?  He’s bisexual?  Then he must be exciting because bisexual people, as a group, are all really fun to be around.  Ask one.

Marcus

Woof! That’s right – woof! Because if there’s one word Marcus is going to say, it’s woof! Or maybe graaaaarrrr. Or Yeah! Because Marcus is a bloke, yeah? Fearless and manly are two words he openly uses to describe himself, and he’s ready to take on any task or challenge to prove he’s ‘the man’. If he could have his dream job, it would be as a porn star. Yeah! And if he could break the law, he’d do a bank job for the ‘high rock and roll factor.’ Yeah! Oh, did we mention Marcus has lived on his own for 20 years with his cat. No, thought not. Surprisingly, Marcus does have one or two bad habits including swearing, chewing his nails and arguing. He freely admits that he uses the worst swear words around, so ‘bleeps’ should be expected. Do not adjust your set. Naked ladies, toys and guitars make him happy. People who dislike his hair offend him. Did we mention that Marcus was single? And has a mullet?

Is the copywriter of these ridiculous blurbs annoying you yet?  I’m annoyed.  So Marcus wants to be a porn star.  Oh dear.  Channel 4 has once again mistaken ‘controversial’ for ‘interesting’.  If you’ve ever watched porn, you’ll know that male porn stars’ personalities are so barren, you’d have more fun dating an isosceles triangle.  Besides that, wanting to be a porn star in NOT controversial.  It’s exactly what a man with a dismal sense of humour would say in order to appear exciting.

Beinazir

Don't mess with Beinazir. This tough-talking, no-nonsense Londoner works with disaffected youth. So she should be well-placed to deal with anyone she comes into contact with inside Big Brother. She's a family girl who still lives at home and puts a large chunk of her wage packet back into the family pot. Beinazir is hard-worker and would step up to any task. Just don't ask her to cook dinner - she can't. Although single now, the 28-year-old wouldn't mind finding romance in the House - but they've gotta be tall, strong and brave enough to face a challenge. It could happen, Beinazair, it could happen.

How many the fuck people are they going to get who can’t cook?  It really isn’t that exciting.  She “wouldn’t mind” finding romance in the house?  Jeez, looks like the interviewer really had to drag that one out of her.  And she works with “disaffected youth” a phrase clearly written by someone who has absolutely no idea what the fuck she does, or who has even seen the inside of a post office.  Wow – poor people.  They’re so real.

Saffia

Saffia is certainly not your average shy and retiring type. Strong on voice and opinion, her views on men might shock the faint-hearted: “they are just sperm donors.” Yowch! And heaven help anyone who challenges her skills as a single mother of two. She also freely admits that she always gets everything she wants. Already sounding like a recipe for trouble, yeah? According to rumour, she’s perceived as a show off, a bitch and a fantastic mum, all of which she confirms as being absolutely true. And the thing she likes most about herself? Why, her appearance of course! Saffia is a beauty consultant after all. Independence is a massive issue for Saffia too and she won’t even let men buy her drinks, let alone pay for a meal. This is one fiery chick, except in the bedroom department, because as far as Saffia is concerned, she could do without sex for the rest of her life. Or so she says, because in the next breath she confesses that she kissed a girl and liked it. Ooh, what would Katie Perry say?

“Bob!  Looks like we’ve got ourselves a screamer!”

“I’ll put the oven on!”

Cairon

Don't be fooled by Cairon's accent. This 18-year-old student might sound like he's from across the pond, but Cairon is really a Londoner. Born in south London, but raised in America's deep south, he's now back where, he says, he belongs. He's a self-confessed joker with an eye for the ladies and secretly wants to be the next 50 Cent. Music, says Cairon, is his life. Before moving into the House, he moved in with his girlfriend. But if it doesn't work out, he says he'll move in with his granny. Seems like you can't keep Cairon away from the girls.

Wasn’t there a previous contestant almost exactly like this, called Science or something retarded?  Prepare for hilarious differences between black and white people.  This man’s music is “his life” which makes him really really different from so many other people.  I’m glad he’s recognised the value of having been a Big Brother contestant in terms of his music career – there is no way that this is a bad idea.

Karly

Ladies and gentlemen, may we introduce Karly for your delectation? Blonde, blue-eyed, footballer-chasing Karly is a part-time glamour model whose proudest moment is when she made it into the Top 100 FHM High Street Honeys. Just don’t mention that she never made it into the top ten, peaking at number 16. Or that she got sacked from her job for appearing in the list. Hang on – what’s this? Karly has another ‘proudest moment’ when she got accepted into Dundee University. See – brains and beauty. Just don’t mention that she quit just three weeks in. However, the biggest shock for us was when she revealed her perfect celebrity type – Simon Cowell. No, it’s not a misprint, she really did say Simon Cowell. So, inevitably we must come to the bad bits. Karly reckons that her untidiness alone will make her very unpopular. Add to that a tendency to always be late for everything and having a ‘gutter mouth’ and you’ve got Karly.

Let me guess – she’s only a part time model because she doesn’t get enough work.  Dropping out of university after three weeks does not equal ‘brains’.  Going 10 seconds into a bout with Quentin “Rampage” Jackson before legging it out the area does not make me ‘tough’.  What we have here is out resident thicko – but it’s better than that, she probably thinks she’s empowered.

Siavash

If you were to open a dictionary and look up the word ‘cool’, Siavash would have you believe there would be a little photo of him waving back at you. We think it’ll be up to you to decide, but there’s no harm in giving you a few facts. He’s absolutely obsessed with fashion and it is obviously a huge part of his life, though where the money comes from he can’t quite say. Siavash says he can’t really describe what he does for a living, but he always has money in the bank. Maybe he’s a politician? Whatever he does, he doesn’t worry about money as he is sure he’ll be a millionaire in 10 years. So, the bad bits? Well, if a girl doesn’t succumb to his, erm, charms, he’ll move on to the next one. Oh, and he blows bubbles with his spit. That must look so attractive while he’s out at dinner. He also says that fat people and ugly people make him angry. Sounds like a complex character…

The man clearly lives off his parents.  And with them.  The man is about as ‘cool’ as voting BNP.

Charlie

Okay crew, set phasers to camp – it’s time for a gay-off! When Charlie arrives in a room there’s no doubt that he’s ‘arrived’. Like a child who’s eaten half a kilo of fizzy cola bottles, Charlie is as camp, chatty and engaging as it is possible to get. And his proudest moment – oh, it brings a tear to our eyes – was when he won the Best Easter Egg competition at school. Winning competitions seems to be a bit of a theme for our Charlie – he won Mr Gay Newcastle and was a runner up in Mr Gay UK. Unsurprisingly, Charlie has been known to take his clothes off and dance in his pants in some of Newcastle’s nightclubs. Of course, he’s got some bad habits – snoring, picking his nose, biting his nails etc. And he’s alarmingly candid and eerily precise about his sexual conquests – 69 men and 103 women. Hmm, we’re wondering about that ‘103 women’ statistic. That’s a mighty large number of women for a ‘gay’ man. Is there something Charlie’s not telling us?

If I was gay, I’d just love Channel 4 and their totally fair and measured representation of homosexuality on Big Brother.  You know, I never took gay men could be such screaming camp-festivals, but it looks like I had my head buried in the sand.  Thank you Channel 4 for opening my eyes and showing the world that yes, rampant exhibitionism is OK, as long as you have an ambiguous sexuality.  And by ‘ambiguous’ I mean ‘horrifying’. 

Sophia

At a fairly short 4'11”, Sophia isn’t the tallest girl in the House, but when it comes to attitude, she’s got the goods. A pretty tough childhood left Sophia with the philosophy to embrace every day as it comes and treat it as your last day. An attitude that some might see as stubbornness. Especially when she claims that she'll never start an argument, but if someone starts one with her then she will end it - even if it has to go on all night. You go girlfriend! On a trust front, she's very wary of people, which might explain why she doesn’t have a best friend to speak of and she’s single at the moment – men give her headaches as she doesn't know what they want. She’s probably not alone there! And what about Sophia's bad habits? Well, how about randomly breaking out into song, talking to herself and farting? Will that do? 

Oh!  Random!  Look what it says: she “randomly” like to break out into song.  She must be so random.  She wants to treat every day as if it’s her last with a vengeance.  Woe betide anyone who attempts to stop her from embracing everyday.  She’s stubborn about this.  I know, I was a bit confused by that sentence too.

Noirin

"I'm beautiful. If I don't love myself, who will?" Now, on one hand, this statement from 25-year-old Noirin is absolutely true – you have to love yourself before you love anyone else. On the other hand, when a drop-dead gorgeous girl like Noirin says it, you just KNOW there's gonna be trouble with the other girls in the House. Oh, and did we mention she was an all-Ireland athletics champion too? So, she’s pretty, sporty and hates things being untidy. And she's single too. Sounds perfect, until she lists her worst habit as not thinking before she speaks which means she frequently insults people. She also gets wound up by people who moan and sit about doing nothing and people who go on about missing their families. Add to this some pretty hard-line beliefs about sexuality and there could be a few fireworks. Now, we could be wrong here, but she does know this is Big Brother right?

Hang on, was the copywriter just philosophising with us?  You have to love yourself before loving anyone else.  Wow, thanks for that, I simply love platitudes.  Ooh, I wonder what her hard-line beliefs on sexuality are -  Never, under any circumstances should a couple fall asleep on the wet patch!  And the fact that she speaks without thinking is a one up on the other housemates who all speak in the absence of thinking.  Go girl!

Kris (with a ‘K’)

Okay ladies, form an orderly queue. This is Kris and he's single. But just before you start getting measured for the dress, let's just get a few facts out in the open. He picks his nose. And, erm, that’s about it really. He's quite switched on for a pretty boy and is concerned that people don't think there's anything beyond the looks: "when the package is this pretty, no-one cares what’s on the inside". Wow, that's a bit deep. He also has a bit of a James Dean Complex – he thinks he will live fast and die young. But that's enough soul searching, let's stay with the pretty bits. He loves his hair and thinks that "curls get girls" – 200 at the latest count according to Kris. But he's a softy at heart. He's been single for a year and would love to meet his 'lobster'. He obviously thinks lobsters mate for life, whereas in fact the alpha male in a lobster colony will do his best to get a bit of  action with every female in the group. Still looking for your lobster Kris?

There’s a reason Kris is single and that’s because he’s a cunt.  Really, look at his description.  He says and does everything truly deserving of that moniker.  Who was that bloke that got sucked into that relationship with the Geordie lass a few Big Brothers ago?  He’ll be like him.  Do you remember?  Yeah, the guy who absolutely nothing to say for himself and was thus incredibly boring.  “No-one cares what’s on the inside.”  So not only is he a cunt, he’s an emo-cunt.  Cunt.

Marrying For Money

First impressions.

Who are we talking about here?

Are the ethics of such a decision irrelevant?

Is it a taboo?

Reading the Sunday Times Style magazine (I like the shiny pages), there was an article about a new book Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped into the Romantic Dream — and How They’re Paying for It whose title is so long it means I am unlikely to learn anything more by purchasing the book than what they have already learnt by reading the cover.

Then that’s not going to stop me from having an argument with this book cover.  An argument based upon certain presumptions I’ll make.

The first thing that struck me is the idea that women have been duped into the Romantic Dream.  Contrary to all other pop/chick/relationship literature, the writers of this book seem to think that it is men who are the romantic ones, not women.  But at first glance, this book seems to suggest that women have been tricked into wanting to be romantic, which is surprising to say the least.  So have they been duped?

Women haven’t been duped into this, unless they’ve duped themselves.  Marrying for love is a result of a whole plethora of circumstances made available in the last century, not men tricking them.  The fact that women have a choice whether to marry a man for love or money stems from the women’s liberation movement and the fact that they can (or must) work for a living.  Nobody’s duped them.  Women came by this of their own accord.

Truth is, a relationship based on love is, relatively speaking, a luxury.

Shit, look at the rest of the world.  ‘Primitive’ cultures the world over practice arranged marriages.  Do you think that’s just about control?  No way – they do it because they have to.  That’s why it’s always “Oh, he’s a doctor/architect/lawyer” and not “meet Bob, he’s a bum.  Enjoy.”

But before I needlessly explain how the women’s lib movement paved the way for giving women the choice between marrying for love or money, or working at a job or staying at home (a choice that is incidentally still unavailable to the majority of men), let me just interject with this little piece of words:

This is only an issue for Middle Class women.

It’s true.

See, the working classes have always been more oppressed than women, as a demographic.  Today is very much the same as it was five-hundred years ago.  Both the husband and the wife work.  The men were the miners, the soldiers, the blacksmiths and the criminals.  But the women were the maids, the flower sellers, the shop keepers and barmaids.  Not only that, but their children were chimney-sweeps, mud-larkers, thieves, page-boys, stable hands and street urchins.

For these people, marrying for money was never an option.  For a long time, romantic love resulting in marriage and children was the only privilege the working classes enjoyed.  Hell, if money wasn’t involved, you could marry who you bally well pleased.

Not so with the Middle Classes.  A hundred years ago, the women stayed at home.  Well, the middle class women did.  Everyone else went to work (I’m deliberately excluding the upper classes from this as their world is so different from the lower classes, there really isn’t any points for comparison in this).  But they didn’t need to work because their husband earned enough to keep her comfortable as well as care for and raise children (see Mad Men).

Then the middle class women got bored with staying at home, especially after seeing how much fun working in a factory was during the wars.  So they decided they wanted to work.  But they didn’t want to work in any nasty, working class job where gender wasn’t an issue, they wanted to do what their husbands were doing.  And waddya know – they found that every single one of these industries was weighted heavily in favour of men.  Gradually, over the years, men shifted further along the bench giving more and more room to the women until we get where we are approximately today – that a woman has as much chance of getting a place on the bench as a man and rightly so.

Oh happy equilibrium!  Now that everyone is earning the same, these middle class women no longer need to choose their husbands based upon the size of his bank account, they can choose him for his dashing personality, his sense of humour, his gorgeous good looks and the size of his hands.  The one piece of human fulfilment that had evaded them for so long, but had instead found favour with the working classes – Love – was now for everyone.  In celebration, the middle-classes everywhere expressed this new feeling of solidarity with the working classes by attempting to dress like them – they bought brand new pairs of torn jeans, wore ugly white sports shoes and made rich men of poor artists by buying and pretending to like their aggressive sounding music.

So what’s gone wrong?  Who’s getting upset?  Well, I guess I have to refer back to the article in Style magazine if I am going to make a genuine attempt at understanding this.

Well the first thing they do it admit that women duped themselves into the romantic dream.  Elizabeth Ford, one of the two writers and a successful TV producer said “It is not a how-to guide… It is simply two educated and well-meaning women who are just going, ‘What the hell did we do?’”

Well apparently the idea that women ‘can’t have it all’ seems to be subverting the post-feminist movement.  But that’s everyone’s fault really.  It seems stupid now that a group of people were told they could have it all, when even the people they were competing against didn’t have it all, but that’s what was being sold.  Loving marriage?  Check.  Kids?  Check.  Rewarding job?  Check.  Happy family life?  Check.  Active social life?  Check.

Who the hell was pedaling this bullshit?  Everyone.  I mean sure, it would be so much more fun to blame this entirely on women themselves, but as with any paradigm shift, there are an annoying variety of factors to consider.  I am not going to try and address them all now because, well, I don’t know them all and I don’t have the space.  Although it’s enough to say that the idea was sold.  By all sorts of parties.  Just like any broad-jacketed, smooth talking salesman, the sales patter managed to seriously oversell a product – that working hard at a job somehow made life worth living – whereas in actuality all that happened was that there were more people making, and therefore spending money.

So now, because women realize they are not able to have it all (Oh hi, nice to see you back on Terra Firma) they have to make a choice between love and money (still, the fact that a choice is available is a sign of progress).  Personally, I think this is fine.  If you marry a man for his money, he’ll marry you for your looks – a trade off that many an aging millionaire has appreciated.

But some women have achieved the perfect life, as is described in the article:  Farah is a 42 year old married woman with three kids, an active social life and is a self-employed internet entrepreneur.  They are wealthy, happy and in love.  Proof, if any were needed that What Women Want can be achieved.  But once again I return to the class issue.

Of course she has achieved happiness – she’s made a lifestyle choice by opting to first become a journalist, then to develop a social networking site based around Jazz and Classical music.  The fact that she admits she doesn’t have to work is the crux here, just like Kowal, another woman mentioned in the article who is married with a job as a horticulturalist at Kew.  But how many women have that choice?  Screw that, how many men have that choice?  Not many.  Most people work because they have to, not because they want to.  Working class women work at working class jobs because they have to.  Working class men work at working class job because they have to.  Hell, middle class men work at middle class jobs because they have to (admit it, who dreams of being a hedge-fund manager?).   The only people with a choice here are middle class women.  Not bad!

I am somewhat confident that I haven’t offended anyone in this hastily written diatribe – why?  Because it indicts the middle class.  The working class dislike the middle class, the upper class are indifferent towards the middle class and no self-respecting member of the middle class would dream of labeling themselves as such.  

This blog gave me the idea.  Music for a balmy day.  Let's go!

Let's start with something obvious, a bit of Bob
1.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=59G67qq19e0 
(I'm at work so can't go on Youtube, but links should work)

OK, nice.  Something some of you may be familiar with, Seals & Crofts:
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhDNvbtFp4

Keeping with the reggae-ish theme, Finlay Quay:
3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=seIZaeAv-ac

Booker T & The MGs "Green Onions", only because of my restricted access I couldn't find another tune.  Still, I like this a lot.
4. www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGthEPeIEno

Which reminds me, I don't know why of Dj Shadow
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpAN1MZUO1E 

Moving on to Fun Lovin' Criminals
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxZXEatfhSk 

And before I forget, some chilled out Lemon Jelly
7. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lt3PegrIXs

And this one, love the bass line
8. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z66rDVkaK4w

And finally, disco sensation Donna Summer
9. www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TBmeK9Abg

I hope some one enjoys this.  Cos I didn't get to listen to any of it.

I’m writing this to make it both clear to myself and others as there is a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to understanding Catholic dogma, especially is regard to sex and marriage.  Let’s face it – nobody really seems to know how or why Catholics have an attitude that is almost polar opposite to the modern, liberal sensibilities of today.  Most just seem to think it is a result of institutional belligerence, intolerance and arrogance.  But there is always a philosophy behind these things.

Why do they oppose contraception?

Why do they oppose gay marriage?

What on Earth is an annulment?

It all starts with Aristotle.  Like any cultural phenomenon, Christianity inherited the history of the people from whom it came.  Half was Judaism, and half was Hellenism (the historical term for what is generally known as ‘Western’ – that is Greek culture since Alexander the Great).

It is Aristotle’s ethical philosophy that has had the greatest influence on Christian thought, but which is also reflected in the Jewish religion.

His ethics stems from his philosophy on Causality (Teleology) – that deals with design and purpose.  Briefly, he tells us that everything has four different types of ‘causes’:

-          The Material Cause (e.g. the material cause of a table is wood)

-          The Formal Cause (simply put the idea of an object)

-          The Efficient Cause (that which brings about an object e.g. an artist to a picture)

-          The Final Cause (the teleos, the purpose, the end of something e.g. the purpose of an eye is to see).

Are you with us?  Don’t worry, I am only putting this in context – you won’t have to remember all of this.

How does this relate to ethics?  Aristotle argued that everything that is done is done with a goal in mind – A Final Cause.  This goal is ‘good’ because “good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavor.”  See?  If we define ‘good’ as something that we are trying to achieve, then anything we do that has a Final Cause must be good (in a rather esoteric sense, not what you’d find in your concise dictionary).  If that’s not clear, try looking it up – I am after all attempting to explain Aristotle’s ethics and Catholic dogma in a single blog – bare with me.

But is there a universal ‘good’, or Highest Good?  What are we all aiming for?  Aristotle decides that the Highest Good is “happiness”, which is more profound than it sounds – for what is happiness?  Humans, he decides are rational beings who have a Rational Soul.  Rationality therefore is our Final Cause and is therefore what makes us happy.  I am not going to go into exactly what he means by Rationality, but at the very least, it is what differs us from the animals – it is beyond mere pleasure, fame or amusement.

Now Christianity.

The Final Cause of the sexual act is procreation.  The sperm and the egg are in existence in order that they may, through the normal passage of nature, come together to create new life.  This is a Final Cause, and therefore ‘good’.  Anything that attempts to hinder this therefore is not good, or, to use Christian language, Morally Wrong.

This fairly simple definition manages to sweep away a large amount of activities that nowadays are considered to be neither right nor wrong, but simply ‘normal’.

-          Contraception is Morally Wrong because it is a willful attempt to hinder the passage of the sperm and prevent fertilization of the egg.

-          Any activity whereby sperm is prevented from achieving its Final Cause is wrong – so that would be any sexual activity that involves the male climax happening outside of the female’s vagina.

-          This includes masturbation, oral sex (where climax happens outside the vagina) and of course anal sex, in particular homosexual sex.

An oft used phrase in Catholic writings is ‘natural law’ as it is the Catholic belief that Natural Law and God’s Law are twinned.  God created the world, and with it all the Final Causes of its objects – the Final Causes of objects are in practice their nature.  So the Catholic complaint that certain activities are ‘unnatural’ is not just the cry of a die-hard conservative who is afraid of change, it is the cry of someone who believes that by being unnatural you are behaving wrongly because you are going against God.

There we go!  That wasn’t so difficult was it?

Now, in a separate, but connected issue is the question of extra-marital sex.  Why is it so important that Christians do not have sex outside of marriage?

What is the Final Cause of marriage?  Love?  Really?  Because although that has been the romantic notion of marriage for most of living memory, in practice the desirability or possibility of marrying for love is a modern concept.  Through out history, in practically every culture the institution of marriage has been dictated by politics, economics and society, very rarely love.  Why is that?  Because marriage’s Final Cause has been the creation of a secure environment within which children can be born and raised.

This is why women very often married men who were much older (that is financially secure), that is why certain rich men have been able to have more than one wife (they are capable of supporting them) and that is why in the interests of peace, rival factions are brought together by marriage.  Love enables a marriage to work well, but it is not the Final Cause of marriage.

For Christians, the institution of Marriage and the family is the most perfect condition into which children can enter the world.  It is seen as reflective of Natural Law (God’s Law) as well as being expressly stated by God himself in the Bible.  But was not just the Christians who thought this – the Jews believed this and so did the Romans, Persians and Egyptians.  In all of these cultures, children born outside of wed-lock were ‘illegitimate’ – that is, there is nothing wrong with the child, but because they were not born within the marriage, they cannot legitimately claim the privileges that it brings which in most cases meant the inheritance.  This was chiefly to protect the rights of the wife (as it was usually the husband who cheated) ensuring that it was her children who were next in line and not the mistress’s. 

So Marital bliss are the circumstances under which the Christian God wishes humans to bring their children into the world.  Sex, whose Final Cause is procreation should therefore only be conducted within this institution.

It is clear now what is forbidden within Catholic/Christian dogma.

-          No sex without the possibility of procreation

-          No sex outside marriage

And also

-          Marriage is an institution whose Final Cause is for the protection and care of offspring.  Without the possibility of children, there is no marriage.

This is why, under Catholic law, a marriage can be declared null and void if, for whatever reason, the possibility of children is somehow compromised.  That is what an Annulment is.  An Annulment does not say that the marriage is now over, it says that is never happened.  If a woman decides, after getting married that she wants to have a child, and the husband says that he does not want a child, she has grounds for an Annulment because according to Catholics, a marriage is not a marriage if children are not part of the equation.  Part of the definition of the Sacrament of Marriage is that there must exist the possibility of procreation.

And that is why Catholics argue that homosexuals cannot get married.  It is not that they deny that homosexuals can love each other, or that their relationship is false – it is simply that ‘marriage’ can only exist where there is the possibility of procreation.  There is no possibility with homosexual marriages.  The problem they have with the argument for homosexual marriage is that it redefines marriage into something that is not what they believe.

That’s my understanding of the whole thing anyway.  If there’re any roaming priests/theologians who’d like to correct me on any of this, please comment.  But I think I’ve got at least a bit of it down.  Of course, there are other issues attached.  But that’s all I’ve got at the moment.  But bloody hell, it's better than Yahoo Answers.

Oh, and if you do want to comment on this and have a little debate, you’re more than welcome.  Can I just say (I know what can happen on things like this), please keep your emotions in check.  I will be moderating the comments as I don’t want some flame-war to start between commenters.  It’s not cool.  The Dude Abides.