You say potato, I say po-fuckoff

Hm, where to start. Yes, well, you might start from here, whereas I might start from way over here. Or there. Because we're different people with different styles, or rather, because you have no style, foo'!

Regardless, I shall begin.

Absolutes piss me off. Whatever you might say, there's always an argument to be made against it, or a different point of view. Mankind has constructed what is socially acceptable and what isn't. And this construct of ours is dynamic, it is ever changing, due to the fact that people tend to disagree on things. And no one has the power to decide that what he says is the absolute, infallible truth, unless of course you're suggesting that an infallible entity. And what were we taught in school, children? That infallible all-knowing beings don't exi- wait, what?

Ah, humour. A lovely thing. Now... where was I... ah, yes.

Allow me to explain further. Take for example all these nuts going around saying that one man killing another can never be acceptable, let's call one said nut "Bob." Now let's have a homicidal maniac, who we'll call "Bill", rape and kill (or kill and rape; whichever he might prefer) all of Bob's family. Now I'd be willing to bet all the money in my pocket (admittedly it's not much) that Bob's stance has changed, and that Bob would very much like to see Bill hanged from his testicles. Not because Bob's a hypocrite, but because his situation's changed, and quite for the worse. Poor Bob.

Now, each person is different, and each situation is different. Each situation shall be seen be each person differently. That's quite a few variables. But how can you know for certain that the "colour blind" aren't seeing the world the way it's supposed to be seen? Millions of people could find something perfectly acceptable, and millions could find it reprehensible. Who's to say which side is right?

You may come to me and argue that some things are absolute, and I will simply agree to disagree. Cause we see things differently and, well, everything is relative.

"Don't bother me with facts." - Norman Lowell

I was intrigued by my father's laughter in the living room, so I went to have a look at what was going on. What I found was Norman Lowell ranting on TV, with Imperium Europa's logo (which looks like something out of Power Rangers) in the background... and my mother on the couch continuously questioning why he was wearing his tie in such a manner.

Here are my comments on some of the highlights. By "highlights" I mean the things that were said in between my laughter to which I was able to pay some attention.

Throughout the show he insisted he wasn't spreading hatred, but love.

Putting every single Jew on Tasmania seems to be workable according to him. Now, Tasmania already has quite a few near-extinct species on it, why put another on there? Plus, if you put them on an island altogether, they'd eventually revolt and blow the rest of us up. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, all Jews, all key figures in the creation of the nuclear bomb. Not surprising really, of course they wanted to blow up the Nazis. MY POINT BEING, they'd probably want to blow you up too, Mr. Lowell.

The Catholic religion is "feminine" unlike the Muslim religion, which can't feed itself by the way. I'm not too sure where he got the impression that the Church is womanly. It certainly is when compared to Islam... but... come on. And regarding Arabs not being able to feed themselves (he mentioned specific countries such as Libya and Egypt) I'm confused as to how northern Africa and the Middle East managed to survive and prosper much more than most of Europe for so long without being able to cook themselves a good meal.

Hitler's a hero, Churchill's a criminal and a drunk, who went to war with the wrong country. A number of issues with this. 1) Hitler wasn't a hero, probably no need to elaborate on this, and the only person who might read this blog and disagree with me on this is Martin. He would disagree by shooting me in the face. So let's hope he doesn't read this. 2) Churchill wasn't a criminal. So what if he bailed on a bar tab back when he was stationed in India? I'm sure he made up for it further on in his life. 3) Lowell should get his facts straight. Churchill wasn't in power when the UK declared war on Germany. Chamberlain was. Churchill didn't start the war. He finished it. Cause he was bad ass.

In case you guys haven't realised yet, I'm talking about Winston Churchill. Not the dog.

Nonetheless, "Imperium Europa" will come into effect in 2012. Good thing Lowell hasn't yet realised the world's ending round about then.

Regarding (bad) Choice

Right, choices, good and bad ones. You mortals all make them, the downside to my having given you all freewill I suppose. The skill in choice making is knowing how to turn those bad choices into something worthwhile. Something I'm pretty good at. The only decision I made which might be considered "bad" would have to be the fact that I decided (yes, decided) to win that sperm race a wee bit over 18 years ago (as you can tell, I turned that into something worthwhile)

Hmph.

Can't think of any other bollocksed up choices on my part. So let's have a look at the world in general.

1) Modern France (actually France in general). wdf guyz?

2) Christianity. Refer to the diagram up top to understand why.

3) Electing Hitler. Right, now I understand them Germans were rather annoyed at having to fork out all that extra cash for the Allies just because they got their asses handed to them the first time around. But managing to democratically elect this nutjob just cause you're frustrated at the rest of the world? How'd that work out for you?

4) The Internet. Look what we turned it into: gossip and porn.

5) AIDS. Yeah, someone, somewhere decided to fuck a monkey, and now we're supposed to deal with a continent of people dying due to this illness.

6) People not wearing condoms even though everyone (sans Catholics) knows it's a lot safer if you do. No STDs, and a bigger bonus, no fucking annoying children!

7) Israel. Whose bright idea was it to put a Jew haven in the middle of 200 million Muslims who don't want them there?

8) Deliberately typing like a retard with overly fat fingers (admittedly some such people exist who can type (you know who you are, dear)), why do you do it? Will having to push an extra 2-3 keys strain you so badly?

9) Not moving away from Malta if you have the chance.. WHY?!

10) Chain-smoking at what's about to be a crime scene then leaving all the buds there for your DNA to be processed, and, as a result, getting caught.

11) Voting for Bush.

12) Voting for Bush the second time.

13) Taking up an offer of candy from a 50-something year old with a moustache.

14) Going to a transvestite fashion contest and having one slip and fall on you.

15) Getting drunk and roaming around alone in search of more alcohol, needing someone to point out blood gushing from the back of you head.

Well, that's just a short list of silly choices with dire consequences, which of course could all have easily been avoided. Now I can't expect everyone to be more like me, and frankly I'd rather you didn't. But please try to be less stupid, aye?

Roadblocks?! Roadbollocks!

(kudos to Gabriel for the title)

Recently I've been reading about a whole bunch of people randomly having their vehicles stopped by some rather rude, armed men and being searched. Sounds very much like the work of thugs, which they are mind you, but these particular thugs have uniforms and authorisation from the government.

I'm told it's been going on for a few years, the AFM interrupting ones innocent journey, searching for drugs, guns, knives, corpses, rape victims, drug lords, homosexuals, communists, Waldo, et cetera. They completely ignore the whole "presumption of innocence" thing and go with the French system, which is "presumption of guilt." Another reason to love the French. Anyway, they pull you out of your vehicle, they search you and the vehicle and they've been known to strip search you. You are not allowed to use your phone, protest, or even calmly and politely point out your rights. Question them in any manner, and they assume you're hiding something, not that you're being an active citizen and going all Gandhi on their asses.

Similar "stop and search" methods used by the UK police were declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, but as usual, in Malta, people are complacent and don't really give a damn. Well, I care so much that I'm gonna write about about, yeah! That'll show these damn fascists.

Now, where to start.

Ah, yes...

THIS AIN'T A FUCKING WAR-ZONE!

It's really the only time you'd find the army conducting roadblocks. What? Did the Gonz declare martial law? No he damn well didn't, so get off my ass before you find all that illegal shit I'm hid- I mean before I call my lawyer and have you all sent up to the Hague!

Secondly, just cause I'm a teenager, doesn't mean this car is stolen, it doesn't mean I'm driving without a license, it doesn't mean I'm carrying drugs, selling drugs, stabbing people, driving drunk, or about to have my way with your little sister. So stop profiling me! Other than a hunch, you have no reason to pull this car aside; you might decide to toss your manners aside, but being such a gentleman, I probably won't. I'll be as polite as possible and attempt to explain your lack of "reasonable suspicion." At this point chances are you'll force me out of my vehicle and strip search me, all throughout, I shall continue to politely protest my innocence and drone on about your indecency. Once you get my trousers off you will be taken aback by my bulge. Once you find absolutely nothing. You will send me off without even an apology, and you will forever be jealous of my tremendous manhood. Wouldn't you rather be spared this?

Thirdly, anyone who thinks these roadblocks are somehow justified because of the very, very few arrests made, or because they think it makes everything safer... anyone who would wilfully be subjected to these searches when they know they did nothing wrong for such reasons needs a rain check. Are you really that ignorant of your rights? Do you honestly believe that the army are justified in their actions? How far would you let them go? Would you allow them to randomly enter your home and search it for anything out of norm, claiming that they're somehow protecting you? Well, as Benjamin Franklin once said "they who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither." It's a slippery slope, allowing the police and army to arbitrarily search yourself and those around you isn't the way to fight crime, it just gives them a feeling of omnipotence and before you know it they'll be watching your every move and by the time you want to speak up, there will be no one left willing to join your cause. You know why? Cause they'd all have been vaporized.

Oh fucking hell, they found me HELPahhhhhhhhhhhiahba9wgahbvaulhui

A collection of essays

Just some random essays and writings, some for school, some just out of boredom and frustration. Enjoy.

"On Syntax

Because the amount of grammatical errors on the internet has been getting on my nerves for, well, let's just say a long time I thought I'd take up some of my time to teach you ill-educated little cunts a little bit about proper syntax.

Loose & lose. For fuck's sake, it's really quite simple, I whacked my head on the desk when my English lecturer felt the need to point this out, I thought "there's no way people in the class don't know this, this is A-level English for god's sake!" How idealistic and silly of me.

So, to give some examples:
Your pussy is LOOSE. Note the double 'o'.

I have a bad feeling about tomorrow's game, I think we're gonna LOSE. Note the one 'o'.

NEXT!

There & their. I shan't rant any longer and simply proceed to examples, I'm sure this makes you all very, very sad:

THERE it is! 'There' is used to show the position of something, you know, here, there, geddit? It's all quite simple.

There comes a point in a relationship where the penis is no longer 'his penis', but 'THEIR penis'. Their is the possesive case of they, that is to say, the third person plural.

NEXT!

You're serious?!

Do not be fooled.. it's NOT okay to say this, let alone type it! 'You're serious?' = 'You are serious?' which is a literal translation from Maltese. The correct way to formulate such a question is: 'Are you serious?' colloquially 'you serious?' is also accepted, because, well, that's how we roll. But seriously, do not, in the presence of myself and a few others, attempt to say such blasphemous phrases.

NEXT!

I'm told there's this 'trend' among you 'teenagers' to use what has become known as 'Minglish', it's not funny, it's not cute, it's not mouthwatering, a turn on, or in any way pleasurable. Are you seriously the future of this country?

Example: Mij end maj frendz qin pijvij!
I shall leave you to ponder the moral aptness of this sentence.

NEXT!

It's & its

I admit, this one might be slightly tricky, but try and get your feeble mind to follow this simple explanation. While the apostrophe + s usually means possesive, it doesn't in this case.

"It's" is short for "it is" whereas "its" is the possesive.

Example:

It's not very big.
Its analytical approach isn't at all understandable.

Understood?

NEXT!

Whose & who's

Quite simple, again. "Who's" is short for "Who is" whereas "whose" is the possesive.

Example:

Whose used tampon is this?

Who's supposed to be here but isn't?

NEXT!

Your & You're

"Your" is the possesive, whereas "you're" is short for "you are", dost thou comprehend?

This is your stupidity, take it, I do not want it.

You're an utter cockheaded cunt.

NEXT!

Actually, not really. Cause I've had enough, I'm sure I could keep going if I wanted to. Suffice to say.. STOP MAKING THESE BLOODY MISTAKES.

Thank you for your time.

"Not an overreaction

Disclaimer: If you think this is directed at you, you're wrong. These are simply the inane ramblings of an insomniac.

So I'm told I have a tendency to overreact when I hear tale of what is going on in this ridiculous excuse for a human society that is Malta. People are so used to not reacting at all to outrageous nonsensical bullshit handed to us by, say, the government, religious institutions, the courts, educational systems and whatnot that they mistake a driven, passionate argument for 'overreaction.'

Unlike most of the public, I've been around. I've met all kinds of people, from all walks of life, with all kinds of stories to tell. I was thankfully not confinded to this rock my entire life and have, from a young age, had access to writings from all sides of the political spectrum. As such, I have a certain world-weariness; I realise things won't always go my way and my minority (some have even described them as maverick) opinions will, most probably, be ignored or insulted, rather than counter-argued in a coherent manner. Go ahead, prove me right, prove to me your intolerance and stubbornness and back away from anything that disagrees with you.

To those who, despite disagreeing with me, keep an open mind, I respect you. To those who, on the other hand, seem to think their dogmatic, imperialist views are the only way to go, I respect you probably just about as much as your respect me. But let me ask you this, what gives you the right to define what is morally right or wrong? What gives you the right to not even give a choice to the people you so proudly call your 'neighbours'?

Liberalism isn't a dirty word, it is simply the acknowledgment that many things are a personal choice, and as long as the choice one takes does not infringe on anothers rights (and by infringe I mean actually harm, not simply take petty offence), who are you to stop these choices? No one should have the right to strip another of their freedoms based solely on what they percieve as moral superiority.

Unless of course you live in Malta.

While this country is considered developed and mordernised and part of what is known as the Western world, it still seems stuck in the Middle Ages. This country that doesn't even have the separation of Church and State, something anyone will tell you should be basic in a democracy. A hellhole, rife with hypocrisy. I find it ironic that the same people I have heard attacking Imam Mohamed El Sadi's statement that chopping off hands of thieves is 'deserving punishment' are fine with the idea of chopping off the hands of those who dare touch their publically placed crucifixes. I find it ironic many of those who preach tolerance and acceptance choose to ignore a whole continent's cry for help, out of poorly-concealed xenophobia. I find it ironic that a society that is supposedly all for love has a problem with homosexuality, still insisting that it is mental condition. I find it ironic that the Archbishop called the ECHR's (we can stop calling it recent now) ruling 'censorship' while he would fight to lock up anyone who dresses as a nun or priest for Carnival, while he has no problem with imprisonment of a student writer who wrote a fictional piece which scratched the surface of taboo. He also has no problem with the Dominicans disciplining Fr Mark Montebello for voicing his (liberal) opinions which supposedly didn't follow the Church's doctrine.

I began writing this as a cure for insomnia, for this reason and many others, I highly doubt this will accomplish anything. But for what it's worth: don't be afraid to come off as an arrogant, pompous, overreacting sod when discussing matters which may seem to have little importance, but could, as history has shown us, turn into something revolutionary."

"No Specific religion should feature in public places. Do you agree?

What? This is outrageous! Obscene, disgusting and worst of all blasphemous! What heretic, what morally challenged atheist dare come up with such an insulting idea? These dirty hippies seek to trample over our right to religious affiliation, they seek to poison the public with their 'liberal', god forsaken viewpoints. Don't be fooled, they are are spawns of Satan who must be punished!

No seriously, what religious zealot (see: nutjob) would actually react in this manner? After all religion is all about acceptance and loving thy neighbour, right? If only it actually were, I'm sure the world would be a better place. Sadly, these zealots are quick to judge and denounce others as 'evil' for daring to remove their crucifix, even threatening to "chop of their hands," which I'm sure Jesus would approve of. Children go to school to learn, not be indoctrinated into a particular faith, they're getting enough of that from the aptly named 'Duttrina'. I'd rather our children learn to be of use to society rather than be Bible bashing rednecks. The reason I am especially stressing on the display of religion in schools is because young minds are impressionable and can be easily pressured and may very well feel out of place due to the simple presence of a crucifix.

You're quite welcome to follow an outdated, dogmatic, hypocritical, borderline fascist institution (ie, be religious), but do everyone a favour and keep it to yourself. Is your faith really that weak that you must be reminded of it at every street corner? There's more interesting things to be put at street corners, things I might actually bother glancing at. If you must expose your affiliation to an intolerant group of self-righteous cranks, feel free to decorate yourself with some lovely jewelry, that is your right. It is however, not your right to demand that the state endorse your faith. There's such a thing as separation of Church and State, after all.

Do not get me wrong, I have great respect for those people whose faith allows them to live a better life, those who adapt their faith to the times, and not attempt to adapt the times to their faith, which by the way is physically impossible. Personally I chose to disassociate myself from all religion, because it has been the source of too much conflict, and I am sick of hearing people tell me I should be ashamed of what I believe, or that my beliefs are somehow evil. To quote Stephen Fry, "That's not nice, it isn't nice."

What exactly has religion done to be held in such high regard? The Crusades? The burning of all those innocents accused of witchcraft? The Holocaust? The KKK? Al Qaeda? The Republican Party? This is all to say that it baffles me that religion is still taken seriously and why should it be necessary to have public displays of it in environments which should be secular. When I look at a crucifix, I don't see a symbol of love and acceptance, I see a symbol of oppression and an excuse to have Galileo recant his scientific theories. But I'm told that whether I like it or not, Jesus loves me. End of."

"Television has a negative effect on society

Before I start I wish to point out the meaning of negative. 'Tis a subjective thing, negativity. If you view something like open relationships, which I'm sure show up quite often on a number of programmes, as negative, while I find that such things have a positive effect on people, these are simply our differing opinions. You cannot claim to be right and neither can I. Knowing the stubbornness of humanity (well, knowing mine at least) I'm sure we might discuss this at great length and eventually you will crumble before my witty and impressive argumentative style, but still refuse to abandon your beliefs. This is all just to say that nothing is universally black or white, everything is grey.

I shall not speak from my experience, but from my view of society as a whole. Personally the only thing television has taught me is how to predict when the commercials will be over so I can walk back into the room or flip back to the channel I was watching ten seconds before they end. Anyways.

Let us take a look at some of the things television is accused of causing. Has it made society lazy? Do we prefer to slouch infront of the television instead of going for a jog in the park? Well, I would say it makes those more prone to being lazy sit around all day, if they didn't have a television to sit infront of, I highly doubt they would actually be inspired to go for a jog. They would just find something else in the company of which to lounge about. Has it made society somehow dumber? Well, no one can deny that people no longer read as much, and I agree this is a shame. However, there are some really bad books out there, a mindless drone, just like there are some really bad TV programmes. To counter this there are brillaint books, just as there are brilliant TV programmes which truly test the mind. You just have to know where to look.

Then of course there's all this talk of sex, violence, drugs and whatnot, and how television only makes such things more widespread. To quote Graham Chapman, "I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off!" Really, sex is all rather uncomfortable to talk about to most people, television helps them. I think it helps bring sex out of the dark, forbidden basement it's been in for so long. Which I would say is necessary, judging by the sexual education I got at school, which frankly was hardly informative and more of a simple "DON'T DO IT!" Violence? Well, with all that's been going on in the world, who hasn't at least once wanted to take an axe to a priest like in that movie I saw recently? Nothing wrong with it. Drugs, that's a tricky one. Well, only an idiot (or a child who shouldn't be watching such programmes) would be influenced by what he sees on a screen to dabble into illegal substances, and if he's stupid enough to take drugs cause he saw someone take them on TV and dies as a result, I call that natural selection.

Negative effects? I beg to differ. These are only the accusations of 'concerned' mothers (if fathers are involved chances are they're only going along with their wives out of fear). I've been watching television all my life, and I turned out fine. Now if you'll excuse me I must first nail this bastard's head to a wall, then proceed to rape his wife and daughter, then end the day smoking vast amounts of weed."

"No to divorce - tyranny of the majority?

Quite simply, yes, it is. Not everyone on this rock is Catholic and as such not everyone believes that in marriage god is bringing two people together. If you happen to disagree with divorce, then fine, don't ever have one yourself, but how does it affect you if your neighbour is divorced? Is it really any of your business? What gives you the right to tell others what to do? Is it perhaps your alleged moral superiority? News flash: finding Jesus doesn't mean you get to tell others what is right and what is wrong, I'm pretty sure if they want to they can distinguish for themselves.

Please don't give me these idealistic, childish views on marriage. It doesn't always last. It is not an unbreakable bond. This isn't Disney. Nothing is perfect, least of all you and me, and as such, relationships fall apart. Why must two people that do not love eachother anymore need to still be bound legally?

Let me make myself clear, the Catholic Church can do whatever it pleases to those who are married under it. If someone's enough of an idiot to want to be manipulated by them that's their problem, they asked for it. But why does the state not allow for what is simply a legal bond to be severed?

I'm not Catholic and as such I do not believe that this bond between a man and a woman (and never should it be allowed for two men or two women to have such a bond! Homosexuality is a sin! A 'moral evil' in Benedict's own words. This is the same guy who went to Africa and said condoms don't work to prevent AIDS, I think we should listen to him.. anyway, this is a totally different argument) is made by god. But it seems that just because of some people who are either overly religious, or too simplistic in their views on marriage my opinions which will in no way infringe on their rights are completely voided.

All I'm saying is give people a choice. Marriage won't lose its importance, for the simple reason that it was never that highly regarded anyway. No one will be forcing people to have a divorce, but in the current situation people are being forced to still be bound (even if separated they are still stuck with their former partners, and will not being able to benefit economically if they cohabit with a new partner.)"

"My first journey abroad (or how I conquered France)

I was so relieved to have left that death-trap of an aircraft that I did not stop to think of the country I was stepping into. Other than having won the plane tickets at one of many weekly poker games with the lads, I had no reason to come to this place.

As I exited the terminal, the combined stench of cigarettes, garlic and the locals would have knocked me right out, had i not spent the previous week readying myself in ways I do not wish to recall. I was instantly labeled a foreigner (the lack of a beret gave me away) and everyone quickened their pace away from me, so as to avoid any inquiries I might have had. This didn't irk me in the slightest, like I said, they stank.

By now you must have realised I speak, of course, of France. I chose to utilise the tickets for simple reasons. I'd never been abroad, and I wanted to see for myself if there was any truth to all the generalisations made about France and its people. From my my view, they had yet to be proven wrong. The only thing left to prove was that the French are a bunch of cowards. That shouldn't be too difficult. I approached one of the many Frenchies in the vicinity and began rifling through my pockets. He immediately threw himself to the ground, screaming what I can only assume meant "I surrender!" Why was I not surprised?

After a moment of silence, the Frenchie, realising his utter stupidity, got back on his feet. He muttered something completely incomprehensible and just stood there, and there he remained. The situation was beginning to get rather awkward, and I took a step back, the Frenchie followed. I took a number of more steps, he continued to follow. Seems I got myself a French follower. This was going to be fun. I communicated to my slave to lead me to his vehicle, and I departed on my new quest: to conquer France.

After two hours of going around the streets of France, I gathered a couple of thousand followers. It wasn't too difficult, I get within ten feet of one and they stick out a white flag. I was given the name "Jesus of France" for my brilliant and seemingly supernatural ability to gather these Frenchies together. I'm rather modest, and insisted to international media that it wasn't overly difficult. They refused to believe it, and cheered me on in my liberation of France.

Now, a mere two weeks later, I sit comfortably in the Élysée Palace, resting my feet on Sarkozy's back. France is now a civilised nation, smoking, baguettes, frogs and garlic have been banned, and the women shave their armpits. "Do you have plans to rescue any other counties from ruin?" I get asked often. My response, being quite a blunt lad, usually is "it wasn't at all difficult, in fact, these Frenchies pretty much helped me." "

"On Crucifixes in Classrooms

As a devout Pastafarian, the presence of a crucifix in my classroom does in fact give me the heebie-jeebies. Us Pastafarians do not feel the need to hang symbols of the FSM in public to remind us of our faith in Him, in fact, He would rather we didn't. He would rather we keep our beliefs private, because he acknowledges not everyone believes in Him, He's not a pompous, intolerant being. Is the Christian following really that weak that it must be continually reminded of its belief by having crucifixes hung above every blackboard?

Was the court's decision democratic, you ask? Well, any step away from the fascists' decision to make crucifixes in classrooms a must, I would call democratic. This isn't the European Court bending over backwards to please the growing Muslim population, as some seem to believe. Nor are they pleasing the atheist, liberal, dirty COMMUNISTS. They are simply pointing out that a public school should be a secular environment, the government shouldn't endorse (verbally or otherwise) any particular belief.

Was the initial presence of crucifixes in classrooms democratic? Well, as I've stated, Mussolini* decided to hang them up. I think that speaks for itself,

RAmen.

- Ben

*a man so devout to his beliefs he decided to ally himself with another man devout to his beliefs, and together they thought they should eradicate those evil Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross, as any good Catholic also should"

"Was Obama the right choice for the Nobel Peace Prize?

I'm sorry, but does anyone actually still have faith in these kinds of awards?

I suppose it's possible they're just thanking Obama for not allowing the hypocritical religious fanatics to retain the White House, I know I am.

But beyond that, what has he actually accomplished? You may argue he's given everyone hope for a brighter future, he united and rallied not only his nation, but the whole world behind him. His campaign's slogan, "Yes We Can!" is recognised everywhere you may go, as is his name... whereas if you mentioned "Bush" to your Average Joe, I don't want to know what might come to their mind first. No one has ever captured our attention as Obama has, except perhaps God/Jehovah/Allah/.

Among other things:
He is probably the first President to seriously fight for an end to nuclear proliferation. He ended the "global gag rule" allowing even those clinics that offer (or speak the word) abortion to benefit from American taxes (it'll be back with the next rightist President anyway). He shut down Gitmo (okay, just shipped off prisoners to be tortured elsewhere..)

At least wait until he's accomplished something sustainable. He has the potential. In his term as President I have faith that he will. So just hand him the prize once that happens, not before. You're just putting pressure on the poor soul.

Keep in mind, I write this with an 8" Obama bobblehead standing proud at my desk."

A blaspheme

First of all, welcome to my blog, been putting my ramblings in writing for some time now, never in typing, and for the most part not to an audience. But here goes.

I've been meaning to put down all my thoughts on faith, religion, the meaning of life and whatnot for some time now.

If you've met me or heard even just a wee bit about me, you'll know this is a topic that oft crops up in my presence. There are many aspects to my beliefs, and I can't blame you for giving up on reading. My tendency to spiral into obnoxious, self-aggrandising ramblings might be a bit frustrating to get used to. All I can say is please bare with me.

I tend to introduce myself as an atheist, for the simple reason that I can't be bothered explaining to everyone I meet my thoughts. Actually, I can be bothered, and in fact I would love to! I love to talk. A lot. It's just there isn't time. Too many people to educate; too little time. Anyway, as you get to know me , you realise my beliefs are far deeper than simple atheism.

As I said there's many different aspects. The most notable of which is the fierce way in which I go after blind faith and this may result in hurt feelings, but tough. If you speak reasonably, I speak reasonably. Tell me I'm going to hell and I'm evil, and prepare for a trashing.

There is nothing that frustrates me more than blind faith, it annoys me that these sheep are the main proponents of the faithful, these people that make no real sense and are quick to denounce others as evildoers and heretics. Please have the ability to argue your faith or lack thereof (I'll get there in a second) well. Think about things before you say them, read up on things, and form an informed opinion. Even if you lack faith please be able to substantiate your arguments, otherwise you make me look bad. I think I was mistaken earlier, there is something that frustrates me more than blind faith, and that's blind lack of faith. Yes children, there's idiots on both sides of the aisle. You know the ones, those whose arguments (not too sure why I'm calling them such) revolve around religion being "uncool," yeah, they get on my nerves. The reason the idiotic irreligious frustrate me more is because I am instantly associated with them when I voice my dissaproval of organised religion.

And now.. on to other aspect!

One other reason I introduce myself as an atheist is because if I explain that I consider myself a pantheist as well as a humanist, I'd get a bunch of blank stares and these people I just met will never want to see me again I will be very, very saddened. So here's an explanation on pantheism, and another of humanism.

Pantheism is from Greek, literally meaning "All is God," basically, I believe that the Universe, Mother Nature, Earth, whatever, is the higher power, and the only thing that deserves my love and respect. It's quite a hippy thing, and there's a quote from Einstein which I believe sums it all up, and also is a definition of religiosity which I believe should be given more importance.

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something which our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. And in this sense I am religious"

Now to the humanist perspective.

There is something I really cannot grasp about the religious (and I currently refer to those who follow, say, the Christian faith, and not Einstein's definition of religion) and that is basically the belief that there can be nothing without their god, and they are nothing without his help. They thank their god for the good things, and blame themselves for the bad things. That's quite a way of life, I must say. I also am rather insulted when they claim that I do not understand faith. I get this a lot from friends who I respect despite religious differences, even those friends who can actually argue and defend their beliefs. And it makes me cringe.

Perhaps I don't understand faith in an invisible fellow up the sky, true, but I do understand faith. Faith in people, in those around me. Faith that humanity as a whole can surpass any obstacle. Faith that science is the way forward. Faith in myself, my friends, my family. Perhaps a strange point to be made my someone who is generally cynical about everything. But if you ask me the cynics are those who chose to say "humanity sucks, I think god is the way to go, I'm gonna sit here and pray and think I'm helping, there my conscience is clean." I hope you feel good about yourselves. I, on the other hand, shall go out there and do stuff.

Till our next, much dreaded, meeting,

BCC