Easter isn't really a big deal to me anymore. Sure, it's nice having some extra chocolate to nibble - on those boring nights in front of the telly watching a movie so dull that you can almost hear your eyes begging you to call it a night whilst your ears attempt to amplify their pleas in agreement - but that's about it. Us non-religious types are not so much celebrating Easter as acknowledging its existence, just so we can claim the holidays that come with it. I remember my younger days, when I was innocent and didn't know any better, drawing funny faces onto boiled eggs and launching (rolling, for the less violent) them down hills until there was nothing left of them except the tiny fragments of shell stuck in your tear ducts. Counting how many chocolate eggs you had received to see if you had beaten your personal record and/or your friends' totals. Those were fun times, no question. However, as with most other things in life, we mature and grow out of things becoming more aware and, in my case at least, develop more detailed and cynical views towards them. Some people choose to retain their childish mentality towards festive periods and sacrifice their intelligence and integrity.
Witnessing any religious event take place is like having a V.I.P ticket to a parallel universe and the Easter "celebration" at the Vatican was no different. To be honest, it felt like a pimped up, modernised reconstruction of Jesus' funeral. The music was bleak, the movements were slow, the people were cold and silent. Fair enough, Easter is supposed to be the [alleged] story of Jesus' death, burial and subsequent resurrection, but it really couldn't have been done in a more tedious fashion. I fail to understand the dress code for these events as they appear to have fuck all to do with anything. It's a bit like some morbid musical about a bunch of 60s bus conductors who are held hostage at a music festival which has been infiltrated and fallen into the control of the Catholic community. I paint a vivid picture, don't I? Apparently, somewhere in the region of 200,000 to a quarter of a million idiots showed up at the Vatican. I base those numbers on one source claiming 200k and another claiming a quarter of a million. Now, 50,000 is an almighty gap if you ask me. How can anyone be missing the total by such a colossal margin? Either one source thinks that 200k is a quarter of a million - in which case, the people responsible should be brought to task immediately - or whoever counted 200,000 received a random phone call from an experienced hit man, with an undisclosed motive, telling them that if they reached the number 200,000 they'd have a bullet in the head before they could say 200,001.
Less interestingly, this was the first Easter "celebration" for Pope Francis and he chose to make it as unmemorable and unspectacular as a Pope Easter address usually is. I like to think of the search for a new Pope being in the style of X-factor-like auditions with the winner being the one with the most unattainable and rediculous ambitions for the world (and the likeliest resemblance to a paedophile corpse). The reason I say that is Francis' message was as pointless and unlikely to achieve as anything else. He wants world peace, way to state the fucking obvious, Frank. He kept spewing out all these things like he was announcing what he wanted from Santa Claus this year. Things like 'the end of civil war in Syria', 'Korean disagreements to be overcome' and 'political solutions to conflicts in African countries.' That's where I question his wisdom. Well done him, he seems to have pointed out a few problems in the world. I could have fucking done that. Any ideas on HOW these tasks can be met, Frankie? It's like taking your car to the garage because the clutch is fucked and the mechanic putting on a hat and some bling before standing on a podium and announcing 'yeh, your clutch is fucked.' I know that, you prick! How exactly do you propose we fix it? Pointless.
Enlightening spiels from the land of Whiskey and Shortbread.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Well, at least I have South Park on my side!
The other day, I made some comments about homosexuality through my personal Facebook profile which drew a bit of criticism from, well, one person, but I can confidently assume there were more less than happy faces behind the scenes. Here is the quote.
"All the hysteria surrounding the 'battle' for same sex marriage is getting me irritated. I'm going to stick my neck out and say I don't agree with same sex marriage, but with the way people are talking I guess that makes me a bit of a cunt, right? Why? What sort of fucked up world are we living in where you have to like everything that's put in front of you? This isn't about acceptance, that's already there. I accept that homosexuality exists and that people want to take it up, but why do I have to like the idea? If people want to be gay, be gay, but I'm sick of all those fuds - who have definately used homosexuality as an insult at least one time - jumping on the bandwagon calling people like me all the bastards just because we don't like the thought of two men/woman getting married. Personally, I think it's manky even without the concept of marriage and if that makes me the bad guy, so be it and fuck you."
Let me start with the confession.
I can see where any sort of hostility and/or anger would come from when I read it over again to myself. It comes across as somewhat confrontational and dismissive of any alternative opinions. Although I knew there would be another side offering their opinions and their part of the debate, the results I received were not the ones I had intended. My comments were labelled 'discriminating' and my intelligence came into question. The main gripe seemed to be the part where I mention people 'taking up' homosexuality, as opposed to it being a thing of nature. I happily accept this as a bad choice of words, but it had little bearing on the point I was trying to make. I partially understand the distaste in me spouting these opinions over Facebook - I could just as easily have kept them to myself - but I still think that there's more substance and interest in that subject than the usual things, like what I'm having for lunch.
Now, to my defence.
It's no secret that I am a sucker for controversy. Rain, hail or snow, I love the feeling of being under someone else's skin. At times, I can take it to the extreme and come across as a bit of a prick. I'm fine with that. Always have been, always will be. In this instance, I picked a 'fight' with a very touchy and emotionally charged group of people in the midst of a battle they have been waging for years. An absolute minefield of a topic at the best of times - though I struggle to understand why - and came out of it looking like someone I'm not.
I consider myself the most honest individual on planet Earth and, when I say 'honest', I don't mean I've never lied about going to class or watching pornographic movies like some sort of saint. I have never been a saint in my life and I don't intend to be. I mean 'honest' in my thoughts and opinions. I will always stay true to myself no matter the consequences and/or who's toes I happen to step on in the process. In today's world, the truth is lying on increasingly thin ice with a sign stuck in it reading 'Tread Carefully' and I feel like there is a disappointing lack of people willing to run the risk and just give their God's honest view on matters. That's all I thought I was doing and I stand by it.
My view on homosexuality has remained since the concept first crossed my mind. I find it a bit disgusting. That line alone would be throwing myself to the wolves, albeit gay wolves, but I wouldn't say it without an explanation. However, my explanation may come across as quite strange. I was like everyone else at one point, I kept any serious opinion on gays to myself, yet actively insulted people using words like 'poof', 'faggot' and 'dike'. When you're young, you don't really think about these words or their meaning in any great detail. As long as it insults people and sounds funny, you use it. At the same time, I knew where I stood when it came to homosexuals, but I didn't know how to explain them. Then I saw this episode of the American animated comedy show, South Park.
For those unaware, too ignorant or too stupid to realise, South Park is more than it appears to be. At first glance, it looks like a foul-mouthed, incoherent, acid trip of a programme full of immature jokes and smut. Pay more attention and you'll find that each episode carries a very honest message on a variety of social and political topics. In this case, the topic was tolerance. The episode centres around the main school teacher, Mr. Garrison, who is openly gay. In an attempt to sue the school for millions, he decides to try and get himself fired by performing acts of a homosexual nature with his partner, Mr. Slave, in class. Several characters are disgusted by his behavior, but they are deemed 'intolerant' and sent to a 'tolerance camp' similar to a wartime concentration camp. 'The Museum of Tolerance' decide to award Mr. Garrison with the 'Courageous Teacher' award for overcoming adversity, but he breaks down and shouts the line that should explain my point all by itself. 'Tolerating something doesn't mean you have to approve of it.'
If that hasn't cleared things up, let me paint a little picture. Let's say I'm living in a semi-detached house and my neighbors are a gay couple. That's fine, I can live with it. I will acknowledge them, be friendly with them and respect them for who they are. However, when the thought enters my mind that they are wholeheartedly in love with each other and are [probably] having sex together, I would be lying to myself and everyone else if I said that it didn't make me feel physically nauseous and slightly worried. I put it to you that, if you don't feel the same way, you're either gay yourself or a fucking zombie.
This does not mean I hate gay people! Some of them can be the nicest people you'll ever meet and some, by the same token, can be the most irritating. I accept that homosexuality exists and I'm happy for them fighting a cause they believe in, but what I feel when the thought of two men/women in love enters my head remains the same. I keep hearing about how you don't choose to be gay, that you are born gay. Well, I can't help my feelings towards homosexuality. I don't care if it makes me a bad guy, discriminating or whatever else you want to throw at me. It's the truth. I won't exactly be popping the champagne or dancing on anyone's grave if they lose their fight, but I can't say I'd be heartbroken either.
There's not much more I can say to explain my stance, I've said it all. If you're still unhappy, then may I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one simple question. 'Am I gay?'
Thank you.
"All the hysteria surrounding the 'battle' for same sex marriage is getting me irritated. I'm going to stick my neck out and say I don't agree with same sex marriage, but with the way people are talking I guess that makes me a bit of a cunt, right? Why? What sort of fucked up world are we living in where you have to like everything that's put in front of you? This isn't about acceptance, that's already there. I accept that homosexuality exists and that people want to take it up, but why do I have to like the idea? If people want to be gay, be gay, but I'm sick of all those fuds - who have definately used homosexuality as an insult at least one time - jumping on the bandwagon calling people like me all the bastards just because we don't like the thought of two men/woman getting married. Personally, I think it's manky even without the concept of marriage and if that makes me the bad guy, so be it and fuck you."
Let me start with the confession.
I can see where any sort of hostility and/or anger would come from when I read it over again to myself. It comes across as somewhat confrontational and dismissive of any alternative opinions. Although I knew there would be another side offering their opinions and their part of the debate, the results I received were not the ones I had intended. My comments were labelled 'discriminating' and my intelligence came into question. The main gripe seemed to be the part where I mention people 'taking up' homosexuality, as opposed to it being a thing of nature. I happily accept this as a bad choice of words, but it had little bearing on the point I was trying to make. I partially understand the distaste in me spouting these opinions over Facebook - I could just as easily have kept them to myself - but I still think that there's more substance and interest in that subject than the usual things, like what I'm having for lunch.
Now, to my defence.
It's no secret that I am a sucker for controversy. Rain, hail or snow, I love the feeling of being under someone else's skin. At times, I can take it to the extreme and come across as a bit of a prick. I'm fine with that. Always have been, always will be. In this instance, I picked a 'fight' with a very touchy and emotionally charged group of people in the midst of a battle they have been waging for years. An absolute minefield of a topic at the best of times - though I struggle to understand why - and came out of it looking like someone I'm not.
I consider myself the most honest individual on planet Earth and, when I say 'honest', I don't mean I've never lied about going to class or watching pornographic movies like some sort of saint. I have never been a saint in my life and I don't intend to be. I mean 'honest' in my thoughts and opinions. I will always stay true to myself no matter the consequences and/or who's toes I happen to step on in the process. In today's world, the truth is lying on increasingly thin ice with a sign stuck in it reading 'Tread Carefully' and I feel like there is a disappointing lack of people willing to run the risk and just give their God's honest view on matters. That's all I thought I was doing and I stand by it.
My view on homosexuality has remained since the concept first crossed my mind. I find it a bit disgusting. That line alone would be throwing myself to the wolves, albeit gay wolves, but I wouldn't say it without an explanation. However, my explanation may come across as quite strange. I was like everyone else at one point, I kept any serious opinion on gays to myself, yet actively insulted people using words like 'poof', 'faggot' and 'dike'. When you're young, you don't really think about these words or their meaning in any great detail. As long as it insults people and sounds funny, you use it. At the same time, I knew where I stood when it came to homosexuals, but I didn't know how to explain them. Then I saw this episode of the American animated comedy show, South Park.
For those unaware, too ignorant or too stupid to realise, South Park is more than it appears to be. At first glance, it looks like a foul-mouthed, incoherent, acid trip of a programme full of immature jokes and smut. Pay more attention and you'll find that each episode carries a very honest message on a variety of social and political topics. In this case, the topic was tolerance. The episode centres around the main school teacher, Mr. Garrison, who is openly gay. In an attempt to sue the school for millions, he decides to try and get himself fired by performing acts of a homosexual nature with his partner, Mr. Slave, in class. Several characters are disgusted by his behavior, but they are deemed 'intolerant' and sent to a 'tolerance camp' similar to a wartime concentration camp. 'The Museum of Tolerance' decide to award Mr. Garrison with the 'Courageous Teacher' award for overcoming adversity, but he breaks down and shouts the line that should explain my point all by itself. 'Tolerating something doesn't mean you have to approve of it.'
If that hasn't cleared things up, let me paint a little picture. Let's say I'm living in a semi-detached house and my neighbors are a gay couple. That's fine, I can live with it. I will acknowledge them, be friendly with them and respect them for who they are. However, when the thought enters my mind that they are wholeheartedly in love with each other and are [probably] having sex together, I would be lying to myself and everyone else if I said that it didn't make me feel physically nauseous and slightly worried. I put it to you that, if you don't feel the same way, you're either gay yourself or a fucking zombie.
This does not mean I hate gay people! Some of them can be the nicest people you'll ever meet and some, by the same token, can be the most irritating. I accept that homosexuality exists and I'm happy for them fighting a cause they believe in, but what I feel when the thought of two men/women in love enters my head remains the same. I keep hearing about how you don't choose to be gay, that you are born gay. Well, I can't help my feelings towards homosexuality. I don't care if it makes me a bad guy, discriminating or whatever else you want to throw at me. It's the truth. I won't exactly be popping the champagne or dancing on anyone's grave if they lose their fight, but I can't say I'd be heartbroken either.
There's not much more I can say to explain my stance, I've said it all. If you're still unhappy, then may I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one simple question. 'Am I gay?'
Thank you.
Sunday, 24 March 2013
I hope you read this some day, Rio...
If there is any human being alive that I really despise, I am not going to say because it's a pretty long list. However, one man is very near to the top of that list, if not quite there, and his name is Rio Ferdinand. Every time that man opens his mouth - or logs into his Twitter account which he's so fond of doing - I feel an overwhelming amount of stupidity and pointlessness putting immense pressure on my eardrums and/or brain. For someone semi-famous, this guy oozes irrelevance and idiocy.
Remember the time he went on a Twitter 'rampage' after he failed to make the England squad? I remember actively searching for a conclusive way to shut his illiterate face. He was so focused on things that didn't carry any merit, such as the racism row between fellow England defender and downie John Terry and his brother Anton, and forgot that he isn't that good of a footballer. I've never thought much of him in a footballing capacity either. When he signed for Manchester United I suppose he was half decent, but that's about all he ever was to me and clearly Roy Hogson agrees. Rio doesn't want to believe he sucks, so he blames his exclusion on other stories which were just as worthless as he is.
Anyway, let's fast forward to more recent shenanigans.
On Friday night (I think), England trounced a happily accepting San Marino side 8-0. Anyone who tells you San Marino ever stood a chance is incapable of thought. Rio was picked by Roy Hogson to be a part of the England team - not sure what he was thinking, I wouldn't have picked him for San Marino - but decided to refuse in favor of a comfy seat inside the commentary box. To be fair, I'm sure he is just as competent as a commentator as he is as a philosopher. He claims 'I pencilled in to have certain treatments, had them and I've come away to have some rest time and to recuperate and get myself ready.' In the words of Glasgow comedian Kevin Bridges, 'did ye, aye?' That means 'did you, yes?' to those who don't speak the language of cool. Is there any chance we could get Rio to pencil himself out of our lives forever and give ourselves some fucking rest time? His words are meaningless as always, we all know he did it out of spite because he is a dick.
I had to laugh at the news headlines though - 'Rio Ferdinand Blasts England Football Team'. Hahaha! Getting 'blasted' by him is like someone throwing a ball of cotton wool at you. Inconvenient, but ultimately harmless. 'Rio Sticks the Knife In'. I bet it was a butter knife made of cardboard. I assume when he uttered these next words, that I am about to quote, he was thinking about himself and decided to disguise it by pinning his thoughts onto the England team because, San Marino or not, it's hard to see the negative in winning 8-0 away from home in any sport. I'm going to show you what I mean by putting the word he really means into brackets next to the word he actually said. 'We (I) need to have a real good look at ourselves (myself). Whether it's a mental thing or if we're (I'm) just not good (intelligent) enough, that's what we're (I'm) trying to search for.'
Whatever it is Rio, I'm afraid it may be incurable.
The value he gives to Twitter and his 'followers' is nothing short of astounding. He has a lot of fans on Twitter, but then they are all just as mentally stunted as he is, if not more so. Has anyone ever been remotely curious as to what a professional footballer could type in 140 characters or less? The only thing that caught me by surprise is that any of them had enough words in the tank to take up that challenge. A game of Scrabble to them must feel like Chinese torture. Forget the fame that comes with being a footballer, these are people who, when they walk into a room, you can hear a blue-bottle puking on a dish towel. Unintelligent, unappealing and uninteresting. Rio is the cream of that crop, in my opinion. Get off of twitter, Rio, and get real.
Remember the time he went on a Twitter 'rampage' after he failed to make the England squad? I remember actively searching for a conclusive way to shut his illiterate face. He was so focused on things that didn't carry any merit, such as the racism row between fellow England defender and downie John Terry and his brother Anton, and forgot that he isn't that good of a footballer. I've never thought much of him in a footballing capacity either. When he signed for Manchester United I suppose he was half decent, but that's about all he ever was to me and clearly Roy Hogson agrees. Rio doesn't want to believe he sucks, so he blames his exclusion on other stories which were just as worthless as he is.
Anyway, let's fast forward to more recent shenanigans.
On Friday night (I think), England trounced a happily accepting San Marino side 8-0. Anyone who tells you San Marino ever stood a chance is incapable of thought. Rio was picked by Roy Hogson to be a part of the England team - not sure what he was thinking, I wouldn't have picked him for San Marino - but decided to refuse in favor of a comfy seat inside the commentary box. To be fair, I'm sure he is just as competent as a commentator as he is as a philosopher. He claims 'I pencilled in to have certain treatments, had them and I've come away to have some rest time and to recuperate and get myself ready.' In the words of Glasgow comedian Kevin Bridges, 'did ye, aye?' That means 'did you, yes?' to those who don't speak the language of cool. Is there any chance we could get Rio to pencil himself out of our lives forever and give ourselves some fucking rest time? His words are meaningless as always, we all know he did it out of spite because he is a dick.
I had to laugh at the news headlines though - 'Rio Ferdinand Blasts England Football Team'. Hahaha! Getting 'blasted' by him is like someone throwing a ball of cotton wool at you. Inconvenient, but ultimately harmless. 'Rio Sticks the Knife In'. I bet it was a butter knife made of cardboard. I assume when he uttered these next words, that I am about to quote, he was thinking about himself and decided to disguise it by pinning his thoughts onto the England team because, San Marino or not, it's hard to see the negative in winning 8-0 away from home in any sport. I'm going to show you what I mean by putting the word he really means into brackets next to the word he actually said. 'We (I) need to have a real good look at ourselves (myself). Whether it's a mental thing or if we're (I'm) just not good (intelligent) enough, that's what we're (I'm) trying to search for.'
Whatever it is Rio, I'm afraid it may be incurable.
The value he gives to Twitter and his 'followers' is nothing short of astounding. He has a lot of fans on Twitter, but then they are all just as mentally stunted as he is, if not more so. Has anyone ever been remotely curious as to what a professional footballer could type in 140 characters or less? The only thing that caught me by surprise is that any of them had enough words in the tank to take up that challenge. A game of Scrabble to them must feel like Chinese torture. Forget the fame that comes with being a footballer, these are people who, when they walk into a room, you can hear a blue-bottle puking on a dish towel. Unintelligent, unappealing and uninteresting. Rio is the cream of that crop, in my opinion. Get off of twitter, Rio, and get real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)