Ongoing #16

Azhar Ahmed sentenced over Facebook soldier deaths slur

Since the popularity of the internet turned off-hand pub comments into perma-linked multimedia broadcasts of idiocy, judges have been going cock-a-hoop handing down sentences to anyone with enough motor skills to register a twitter account. This particular Muppet Of The Week happened to spout his drivel about dead soldiers somewhere public enough for one of the widows of a recently deceased serviceman to see and so she called the police. No, wait. What? I can't even imagine how that call went, but I hope it included something along the lines of "Help! Come quick! There's a wanker on the internet!".

So, for the crime of being an inconsiderate arse (okay, technically "sending a grossly offensive communication"), he has been given a fine and community service. Somebody - namely District Judge Jane Goodwin - gets to decide what is, and I quote, "beyond the pale of what's tolerable in our society". I'd suggest that if society can't tolerate some hateful and by all accounts quickly-redacted comments flippantly thrown out on a social media site, society is properly fucked. Right in the eye socket. Or something offensive. The judge went on to state that:

"With freedom of speech comes responsibility. On March 8 you failed to live up to that responsibility."

No. On the 8th of March Azhar Ahmed lived up completely to the responsibility of freedom of speech by speaking freely. Then a moral crusader with not an ounce of irony-recognition told him he couldn't do that. Part of freedom of speech is having the ability to say dumb things so that vaguely intelligent people know to avoid you. It is not and should not be considered illegal to flag yourself to everyone else as the total dickwad that you are.

Ongoing #15

Barack Obama endorses gay marriage

Bold. Steadfast. Historic. A little predictable maybe - and quite a bit late. Barack Obama's announcement that he supports gay marriage after nearly four years of utter silence on the matter would carry a little more weight if it hadn't been forcibly induced by a Joe Biden gaffe the day before. I say gaffe, but what actually happened was that he told the truth about his own feelings which caused vicious questioning of whether the President himself also felt that people should be given the rights and means to attain joy. Apparently this is an issue in America, as opposed to here in the UK where it's just assumed through his words and actions that our Prime Minister doesn't want personal happiness for anyone.

More bafflingly, the PR folks decided that the best course of action was to let poor White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fend off the question for a day without giving him an answer to work with. Presumably they did this just to see if they could get away with it, eventually coming to the last ditch, Jesus-holy-hell-I-can't-believe-we're-doing-this solution of taking a stand on one side of the colourfully-decorated fence. The most tragic part of this outcome was that the facts really were the very last thing that they tried - Obama's staff considered such an admission of humanistic apathy so suicidal with important voters in the "face inside own anus" demographic that they were willing to appear like bumbling fools who were scared of their own thoughts.

That media-savvy folks would choose this outcome is itself a damning critique of where America currently sits politically (although I'm sure if the issue had not been mentioned whatsoever it would have pleased them more). I'm sorry (I'm not actually sorry), but if you're one of these people railing so vehemently against allowing someone else a harmless platitude, then you are either a mouth-breathing affront to the word 'imbecile' or you're awfully, horribly confused. Obama is finally, publicly not confused. Now all he has left to do is anything at all about it.

Ongoing #14

Tanker drivers' strike talks to begin next week as panic buying continues to spread

Congratulations have to go to the government for figuring out how to distract the public from their recent and various embarrassments and injecting some quick cash into their tax coffers without lifting a finger or actually having anything happen whatsoever. Just as the weather anomalies itself the right temperature to make everyone a little unhinged, our genius overlords decided to announce that come next weekend we might not be able to transport our horrible offspring to Ikea for a Saturday afternoon hellfest and like the pack animals we are, we got startled and knocked ourselves unconscious on a road sign.

This master-stroke doesn't come for free of course, as they have just handed a trump card to the tanker drivers by proving how thoroughly Britain will soak its metaphorical trousers in metaphorical shit at the mere concept of not having petrol for a few days. Now that all the idiots have started to panic-buy, that "few days" has started now - a full week before any expected action - meaning that regular people who would have done just fine buying petrol normally at the normal time they would have anyway are finding busy roads, long queues and a nagging temptation to make the queue one car longer just in case. Things are now so fucked, it actually makes sense to join the idiots. Argh, idiots.

But of course after the weekend we'll either find out that this was all pointless because the dispute has been resolved (and "yay government"), or we'll find out that it will happen again at the long weekend when everyone is extra stocked up on Super Crazy. Maybe they could add some extra tension by offering family tax credits for the first person to strangle another motorist to death on the forecourt.

Ongoing #13

Dereck Chisora - David Haye brawl transcript

Finally, some actual fighting in British boxing. Isn't that what everyone was asking for? It turns out that the solution was a very simple recipe of:

• 1 aggressive tosspot of a lunk who can't spell the name "Derek" properly even when it is supposed to be his own name.
• 1 ego massage.
• 1 application of previously defeated British boxer in the same room.

Apply ego massage until he thinks he's indestructible, give him lots of publicity when he demonstrates that he is unable to control himself before the fight even begins, then watch the fun unravel. Extra bonus points for everyone involved in promoting, managing and broadcasting the violence that they want everyone to pay for condemning the behaviour of the angry, highly-trained meat-heads when, surprisingly, they show themselves up as thinking that hitting people is the answer to their problems.

'Anti-gay' book puts Gove at centre of faith school teaching row

It can't just be me who finds it ironic that the offending material which caused a complaint that Michael Gove responded to idiotically has possibly the most euphemistic title I've ever heard - and that includes both joke and non-joke gay porn titles. "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be" apparently rails against homosexual relationships but it's clearly either a work of brilliant satire or about as convincing as a drug addict telling you that drugs are just terrible, awful things. I think that this booklet should indeed be handed out in schools, but it should be renamed to "My First Sexual Repression" and would serve as a lesson in irony.

Ongoing #12

Hate preacher freed to live near prime terror target

I don't think I've ever seen a more passive-aggressive headline than this. Why yes Daily Mail, I'm sure that is the specific purpose for which Abu Qatada has been placed where he has - to make everyone a bit nervous. The Sun goes one further than mere suggestion about proximities by assumption-ating that he "lurks in the shadow of Wembley". I bet his flat comes with complimentary bleach, fertilizer and a little trapdoor with a tunnel too.

Regardless of where they put him, it's always going to be too close to something else for anyone nearby to be comfortable with such a dick living there. Put him in central London, in full view of everyone and their big shiny buildings and it's a kick-start to his terror regime; put him in the outskirts or further away and suddenly he'd be in hiding, furtively furting an evil plan. But isn't it a little offensive to assume that because he's an extremist, he just wants to blow things up? After years of pent-up jail-house West-hating he might have more nuanced plans than the "bomby bomby kabloom" one he's being labelled with.

He may well have no plans to bring us down at all. If I was him and I saw those photographers chasing me down as I got into my ride, I would jump on that cushy media circus train straight away. I could do all the hating I wanted, write a nice bile-fuelled book and then get "papped" with no underwear on. One robe flash and I'd be a star overnight. I would then spend my time Pyrrhically by visiting London's various malls wearing progressively larger backpacks. It would sure beat Jordanian prison torture.

Ongoing #11

Rick Santorum back in the race after sweeping wins over Mitt Romney

Normally I'd be terrified at the mere concept of enough muppets managing to coordinate their gesticulation of a pen and writing what normally constitutes their name next to "Rick Santorum" to result in even one victory for him, but on hearing this news the portion of me reserved for utterly gleeful facetiousness immediately grabbed a beer and kicked back, ready to watch the Republicans eat themselves. I don't think there's anything in the bible against self-cannibalism, so they're fine to proceed.

Rick Santorum has now won more states than previous assure-o-candidate Mitt Romney which shakes things up considerably and fragments the Republican party further, although it is worth bearing in mind that he's won exactly the kind of states whose preferred candidate would be a homophobe on steroids. Santorum himself isn't heinous and objectionable, it's just everything he says, the things he believes and the principles that he works to that make every right-thinking person want to forcefully expunge semi-digested foodstuffs out of their mouths.

Don't get me wrong here; I'm no flag-waving Obama supporter but we know what he does and while not all of it has been great, the place I live and the places that all of my friends live continue to exist and I quite like it that way. The smarmy untrustworthiness on the faces of every nearly every GOP candidate gives me no such similar assurance.

On Award Shows

You'd think that I would dislike "awards season" because of the pomp and ceremony disproportionally employed for such a vacuous event. You'd think I'd dislike it because of the ignorant, grinning maws of the wealthy all primped and preened, ready to be handed a piece of metal that symbolises exclusivity while the rest of the world starves. You'd think I might object to people crying at receiving the relatively pointless recognition they've been so desperately trying to attain through years of an unhinged personality defect. You may even consider that I would be irritated by the inability of anyone who thanks a god in their speech to realise that if their deity loves everyone then he couldn't possibly have had anything to do with giving that award to them specifically. And, predictably, you'd be right.

I understand the need to party and it's nice to get all dressed up but why do we need extreme close-up analysis of every aspect of a garment that very strategically protects little but the bleached detail of Jennifer Lopez's anal passage from our eyes? Although who knows; it could be our vision that needs protection from it. Anyway, this has resulted in people inventing a job called "fashion expert" and other people giving them money to spout monosyllabic nonsense at a camera in such a fanatical manner that you wouldn't be surprised to hear that they'd broken into a celebrity's house, made off with a wardrobe's worth of party dresses and then got into a bath with them, maniacally grinding beads and sequins into every accessible cleft. No, that doesn't sound suspiciously specific.

Strangely though, it seems to come down to mathematics; I don't think my reaction would be so visceral if everyone voted together as that would at least give some statistical gravitas to the results. But not only are they splintered into every possible sub-niche but some of them are simply decided by a bunch of old men in a room. Exciting and exclusive I'm sure you'll not agree. You can go into pretty much any retirement home (especially with the right cover story, believe me) and get hours of opinion on the state of the entertainment industry. How many individual award shows does society need? Besides none, I mean. Let me rephrase the question: what would be a sensible amount of award shows to have televised and reported on by the news media? Oh dammit, same again. I'll get back to you when I have formed a question you can't answer with a wryly-raised eyebrow.

Even if I accept (and I don't) that we have all of these shows and that they're here to stay, there's still a gaping hole in the arrangement; where are the televised awards for industries that mean something like - and these are just a few examples - nursing, fire-fighting, youth-working, general humanitarianism; that sort of deal. And I definitely don't count those "bravery" ones where a bunch of people who actually did things each get an opportunity to be patronised for two minutes by the tag-team of corporate teat-sucking known as Ant and Dec. I'm continually surprised that they manage to record those shows, given how much the human body should convulse when offered a prize for nobility by a duo whose bravest act is to continue to call themselves entertainers after proudly hosting a show that is essentially about making people fellate spiders.

Somehow, whole industries will continue to be kept afloat by this bizarre parade of affluence. I have to wonder how long it will be before human evolution causes them to be shamed out of existence, but I also must worry that shame itself has already evolved to make this behaviour acceptable.

Ongoing #10

Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US

US Homeland Security really should get on board with the latest street lingo because they are being let down embarrassingly by their current grasp of it. Don't they know that "destroy" isn't a bad thing any more? "Bad" isn't even a bad thing any more. Next they'll be putting Obama supporters in Syrian prisons for saying that the President is "whack" due to their 70s concepts about words, or bloggers on to watch lists for saying that the US Department of Homeland Security are petty, humourless, reactionary chimp-masturbators who don't have a gram of common sense in their Jobsworthian bodies.

By way of this latest hissy fit they have essentially advised against all public expression, with not only the place they control but also all countries in the universe now being urged to refrain from "posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as threatening". Construed by whom, exactly? Lawyers? Idiots? Idiot-lawyers? If we extrapolate that out to "anyone we hire" then absolutely any message they feel like could magically be a threatening one. You can construe anything into the shape of any boogeyman you fancy if you try hard enough and these guys seem to love trying just hard enough to get in the news for really stupid shit like this. This is one trending topic I hope we don't see more of (I'm so sorry).

Tensions increase as Duke arrives in Falklands

Oh well go on then, we haven't had a good old bit of war for aaaages. In fact, let's definitely ignore the fact that our ancestors set up camp and started procreation in a pretty silly place miles from home, at a time when a dagger stuck to the end of your rifle was still advanced weaponry and the British Empire still had lots of money to waste. Let's not send a big ship over, collect up all the people who want to come, graciously bow and then sensibly give the land back to the country it's (and I do believe this is the proper geographical vernacular) right fucking next to. That said, what are Argentinians going to do with a chunk of the Scotland Highlands?

While we're busy flying our prince into their airspace, the Falkland Islanders may want to consider how much of a waste of time, money and effort that is, and think about maybe joining the country whose economic policy is to heavily suggest that they should be given free islands, instead of posturing with expensive warships and and wafting royals overhead while its main population kicks about in the dirt.

Ongoing #9

Cannabis taxation: a win-win all round, Richard Branson tells MPs

I wouldn't want to brag, but I've been saying this for years. I could have let the MPs know this for half of Branson's hourly rate because when it comes down to it, what actual reason is there to ban a naturally-occurring plant? Although in my head I've long been a fan of the "take the warning labels off everything and let what happens happen" idea I can kind of understand why certain drugs have been given the tag illegal.

Some of them need ridiculously small quantities to get you to take the ridiculously large quantities that will eventually consume you whole, and so with a bar to entry that low it's surely not worth the risk. But it's a traded-off risk, not an avoided one - the people who still want it will still get it, and they'll get lesser quality from dodgier people who've had to support nastier events than you'd care to think about as you're tucking greedily into your crack rock.

So the argument seems to be danger but putting aside the little matter of the zero cannabis overdoses that have ever happened in the history of the world, since when were dangerous things outlawed completely? They are usually a government's biggest money-spinners - tobacco, alcohol, cars and the petrol to go in them (which I guess is only dangerous if you're a hippie who likes breathing oxygen). Not to mention the life-threatening properties of knives, matches, bleach and water which are very easily accessible by any idiot with the capacity to blunder into a way they can cause injury with them. To someone who has basic faculties those items can be useful rather than a big sticky mess, so it becomes about risk and in this regard marijuana has been proven to be the lowest of the low.

But if they won't listen to evidence, reports, professionals, reports by professionals, public displays of their illogicality by professionals, are they going to listen to the guy with a big sack of money? Oh yeah, they might just do that, it's in their bloodlines.

Ongoing #8

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ongoing #7

Websites block content over US bill

In 2011 protesting became the new shouting-about-stuff-on-the-Internet and now, within a year, not-putting-stuff-on-the-Internet has become the new protesting. I imagine protesting will make a comeback though, it is kind of persistent like that. Some high-profile sites took their bats and balls home in objection to freedom-smashing ham-fist-athon SOPA. Sadly I own no "web properties" with enough clout to make even a dent in the protestural (not a word) landscape if they disappeared, although I do have control over a few sites that, had they done anything (or removed everything they normally do) would have constituted a statement on behalf of some companies that would have rapidly set about getting me fired. I'm against the SOPA, but clearly I'm not that committed.

China's government's grip on its citizens' web usage has been well reported - the mere mention of this fact probably means I'm on a watch list right now. At least somebody is reading these - hello Chinese government employees, I am genuinely sorry that you have no fun in your life. America now seems to be taking a lead from China (as in guidance not metal - we all take enough Chinese lead as it is) by allowing themselves free reign to block any website for pretty much any reason they can tie back, however loosely, to copyright infringement because that no-questions-asked system worked so well for detention of terrorism suspects. Except there won't be a website version Guantanamo Bay, just the cold eternal emptiness of no visitors.

The web is still forming in to what it will be known as for years to come and especially to archaic, monolithic government structure it's a completely new concept - something they have no chance of controlling. As usual the "experts" deciding the way forward have missed the mark entirely - the solution to stopping those pesky squirrels from eating your plants is not to apply napalm to the forest. Although I guess the US already know plenty about that so it'll save a bit on planning costs.

Captain says he slipped, tumbled overboard and ended up in lifeboat

How tragically unlucky for a man so lucky as to find himself accidentally in a lifeboat and accidentally rowing like buggery away from the problem, that nobody believes he is truly a hero who just tumbled to safety. It's also a shame that there's a transcript detailing his cringe-worthy attempts to avoid getting back on the ship to help people.

Just look at the guy - he's clearly a cruise-liner captain, not a real one. Expecting anyone with this face to hang around while unimaginable terror and chaos rains down is like expecting your average bus driver to operate with the professionalism and resolve of a tank commander. "Captain Schettino" even sounds like a cartoon character who bumbles around at eight frames-per-second and gets farcically self-rescued making it look like he fled his own sinking ship ahead of women and children, sort of like an Inspector Clouseau of the sea. With a name like that, it's hard to stay mad at him. "Ohhh, that Schettino!"

Ongoing #6

Final preparations underway for Republican debate

The best theory I currently have is that Americans perhaps aren't fully understanding the purpose of debate. Firstly, they are meant to help people find which candidate they like the best, not which they hate the most. Secondly, debates are intended to move the conversation forward, not reinforce tired rhetoric to the kind of crazies that would go to Republican Debate 5937 (it's somewhere around there) and don't recognise pandering when they see it. Thirdly, they are at some point meant to stop.

Even if one person involved in the entire process were to be convinced away from their views, it would keep what they are pretending these events are (a discussion of the issues) from being quite so laughable. But rather than the candidates convincing the audience of a point using reason, these debates seem to be a "who can say the worst things about Obama and get terrifying Neanderthal-like yells and whoops in response" contest where the crowd let the speakers know just which viewpoints they are supposed to have.

In the UK we use debate in what seems like a far more flexible manner - that is, that there is vaguely the chance of winning anyone over to your logic, or indeed it being pointed out how flawed yours is and everyone getting past it, to the next question and trying to solve that one together too. Sorry, did I say "UK"? I meant to say "Fairy Fucking Pixie Land". But even us British don't seem as set in our ways as the people at these Republican debates. As a result it's hard to believe anything that the debaters are going to say as they are so well-trained on the cookie-cutter anti-liberal party lines required to pass - or as it's also called, "not be shot on the way out".

This seems to mean that the main place from which you should discard what a presidential hopeful said is the place they are meant to be using responsible and reasoned argument. How bad of an omen is it if I find this behaviour untrustworthy before so much as getting to the content of what they are saying?

Golden Globes: Ricky Gervais 'subdued', say critics

Is a non-event newsworthy? Does an occurrence that never occurred become worth talking about if the mere mention of it not occurring sets back hair up on end, on both sides of the topic? It's like that time the BBC reported that the "fifth night of rioting was avoided". So, you mean the rioting stopped? You can't call it the fifth night of rioting if there were only four nights of rioting; it was simply the end of the rioting.

And look, "oops!", they let their paedophile clown out at the party again but dammit; not one rape. Maybe he wasn't that horny after last year's castration or perhaps everyone knew that they couldn't get away with pretend controversy again so decided to put in as little effort as possible because whoever was going to watch would be watching regardless. Damned if you do, slammed if you don't. Still doesn't feel "newsy".

Ongoing #5

Nazi comparison on forum prompts Swindon council row

If you're a member of the royal family, a politician, a councillor, a council employee, a political campaigner or even a celebrity (no matter how minor) - if you're any of these, I have one potentially life-saving piece of advice for you. It's stunning that your brethren hadn't come to this conclusion on their own but sometimes a mysterious guiding hand appears inexplicably to lead you through the minefield. Today, I am that hand - and the hand speaketh thusly: STOP DOING ANYTHING TO DO WITH NAZIS.

Don't say 'Nazi' in public; don't say 'Nazi' in private; don't tweet, Facebook or otherwise socially network yourself as having ever typed 'Nazi'; don't dress up as a Nazi; don't dress your friend or pet up as a Nazi and don't arrange a party that is Nazi-themed in any way, or has a theme that may result in any of the guests turning up dressed as Nazis. All of this is basic stuff by the way - that's why it's free. Don't make jokes about Nazis; don't compare other people to Nazis; don't even think about Nazis. What is wrong with you people?!

In summary, just stay away from all Nazi-type anything. Yes, even if you think that Nazis are evil or if you think you're making a clever or amusing point that requires you to mention them. In fact, especially if you think you are making a clever or amusing point because it's guaranteed that you're not and you will end up in the news. And it won't say that you happen to think Nazis are naughty people with flawed ideologies, it will include only the most contextually-damning bit where you said the word itself. Be smart - don't be Nazi news.

Leon Panetta says US Marines urinating video 'utterly deplorable'

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said the behaviour of US Marines in a video which appears to show them urinating on the blood-soaked bodies of dead insurgency fighters is "utterly deplorable".

Absolutely; how disgusting. All they were asked to do was invade a country, fly drones into buildings and shoot people in the chest and face until they are dead. Making their bodies a bit wet with an inert sterile fluid is just taking it too far - don't these people have any respect?

It seems to be about symbolism and apparently it's more symbolic to urinate on someone's bleeding corpse than to have fired the bullet that produced the blood; because when it involves killing that's just business as usual. Nobody pays you to piss, Private - do it on your own time and away from the targets whose deaths we funded.

Ongoing #4

Mitt Romney 'Gaffe' - "I like being able to fire people"

While this is certainly a dumb thing to say during a presidential race it's not exactly untrue - when you get terrible service from someone you have to think that best course of action is a good old-fashioned sacking or re-deployment to a position where basic courtesy isn't a requirement. Some people are willing to get downright litigious for the smallest of things, which if successful would generally have the same result of somebody losing their job.

So if the underlying sentiment is truthful and identifiable, why this is a gaffe? Romney is super-rich which kind of makes it sound like he's a Business Dick who loves nothing more than to tell a hard-working blue collar family man to have his desk cleared by the end of the day. Only that's not what's happening; he loves nothing more than to tell slackers to do that. And with his party's base being the do-it-yourself pulled-bootstraps hard-graft type, I'm not sure there's a conflict. Similarly, he could appear anti-jobs by wanting to remove that person's job - but he wants to give it to a hard-working blue collar family man or woman (actually, maybe not woman, he just gives me that impression). He wants America to have that job.

My conclusion then has to be that it's a gaffe because he said it. Mitt Romney says plenty and it all has the same clumsy phrasing, cheesy grin and pause for laughter that never comes so I'm still not sure why this is special, but it was definitely given a kick-start into gaffe territory by coming out of his mouth in the first place

David Cameron: my vision for a fair Britain

WARNING: Jesus Christ, every article about David Cameron seems to be accompanied by a massive image of his face in some sort of ridiculous contortion, which has been photographed and then printed out for someone to wear as a mask, which has then been photographed for use in an otherwise unassuming article. My heart can't handle many more of these 'surprises'.

Here's that promise again; does it constitute part of the same promise as before or is it just an abstract moment while he defines his "vision"? Visions don't interpret straight into reality very often, so I'm figuring that this one is on artistic licence.

Mr Cameron said he would use 2012 to convince people that he had a “vision at the end of this, of a fairer, better economy... blah?"

Well this makes sense, because he has only just been made prime minister so obviously he couldn't have used any year other than 2012, where nobody who is capable of cognition should trust him, to do this. It really is a genius plan, I am glad this guy is in charge.

A personal commitment to water down the power of European human rights judges who had been at the centre of controversies with rulings that seemed at odds with public opinion.

An especially strange policy when one's own decisions have been vastly opposed by the public. When you require 40% cuts of public sector working class jobs, but are only just attempting to tackle those obvious figures scampering off into the distance with bags of cash, it's particularly hard to judge your priorities as anything other than warped.

What I find most amusing is that Cameron's definition of "people power" is shareholders. Shareholders are not your average working person. Shareholders are able to afford investment while the majority can barely muster savings. I'm not sure if this is entirely unclear to him but either way it makes rather a convenient blind spot..

Ongoing #3

Mitt Romney wins Iowa caucuses by eight votes

Republican voters display the well-polled but now proven lack of cohesion and incredible apathy at their candidate choices by giving Mitt Romney the narrowest of what is offensive to call 'wins'. He's clearly the best chance for those who want to oust Obama but when not even his own party wants him, how good a position can that be?

He's the "wrong religion", lacks sincerity and is too rich for the common man to fathom; belief that he is convincing regular people he's one of them qualifies as crazed behaviour at this point. But the main problem that has been exposed through the media's use of recording devices, is that nobody knows what Romney really believes about anything. Like John McCain before him, he's contradicting his past self without acknowledging the existence of cameras. I don't want to mock this too cruelly, it could be a special offshoot of Mormonism.

I would normally be wary of the prospect of an unknown US president but really - what's the worst he could do? Re-invade Iraq? Put baskets of guns outside every school and church in a pledge to the gun lobby? Purposefully kill thousands of Americans by removing the healthcare bill allowing them to get care that they were previously denied, just to pander to a bloodthirsty "grass roots" base and distance himself from what is essentially his own healthcare plan that he now has to pretend to hate because Obama also likes it? Oh shit, maybe that one.

Boy 'tortured and drowned' over witchcraft claims, court told

One might expect this to have its basis in deepest Africa or with a newly-discovered island tribe who had been deprived the luxury of societal development, but shockingly this horrific act took place in a flat in London. While you are going to get 'all kinds' in such a cultural stew, people who literally believe in witchcraft should not be one of the ingredients. I don't have an answer to how we would oust the bad parts, although I'm pretty sure checking for prior form would be a decent start.

How such ignorance could fester unchecked and unchanged by our modern world is baffling. People whose foundational truths include the existence of sorcery must not only have been educationally stunted at conception, but surely in constant terror at the boxed magic around them. Having survived in the big city long enough to be residents with such appallingly idiotic belief systems, how did they participate in our society without thinking that every teenager, road sign and bus stop was a witch / haunted / other utter fucking nonsense?

This one-by-one system of letting people do something bad is a terribly inefficient way to excise human matter from the melting pot, resulting as it does in at least one sickening act occurring per sickening person. I wouldn't propose a Minority Report future but precognition is not required to identify some people as dangerous. It might require 'paperwork' and 'keeping decent records' though. I know - who thought preventing the horrendous deaths of helpless innocents could be so boring?

Ongoing #2

Salford murder accused gives name as 'Psycho'

I'm all for not judging books by their covers, but sometimes the cover represents the contents perfectly. Just look at this face, it's made of 100% triple-distilled prick; you can just tell. And the victim, student Anuj Bidve - it is obvious at a glance how much of a better person he is. I mean that in the completely tangible and objective metric of what joy he would have brought to those around him. The total worth of a gang member who introduces himself in court on a murder charge using a fake name he would likely fail to spell? I'm not sure it's detectable with current technology.

All human life may start with equal value but there are some very fast ways to trash it. Most factors that led to what will surely be this man's most notable act were probably outside of his control - we are all genetic experiments; our ingredients are not our choice, nor are our upbringings. In this case, a switch has clearly been flipped the wrong way from the start, but environment has a hand to play as well. It's clear that it would have been more satisfactory for everyone had this person stayed a sperm, but would any of the other sperms have faired any better?

New Year detox is futile

So the extremely common practice of a month off the tipple - usually with the result of knowing the horror that is a month without alcohol and then promising to never, ever put such a limitation on oneself again - doesn't do you any good. Will this news cause, in general, a more careful drinking public who will not do it to excess quite as often? Or will it remove the one time of year that people who were drinking enough that they needed to convince themselves they could totally do a whole 31 days without it weren't drinking to excess? Hang on, 31 days is a lot, let's call it 4 weeks. Do Sundays count?

Katy Perry's father can't talk about her break up

Just kidding.

Ongoing #1

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

Publicly having serious reservations about something you later sign, while promising that your people won't use the more overreaching powers of the law and making a blanket statement about how future administrations will operate is stretching credulity, even for a politician. It seems that after managing to kill fugitive terrorist and Level 20 Boss 'Osama Bin Laden', President Obama thinks he's a knight of the Jedi Order with +12 believability. He is not.

I'd like to hope that there'll be no "long tail" from this story; no human rights travesties that wouldn't have happened without this law's assistance, but I'm almost certain that my hopes will be dashed. Happy New Year America, and here's to 2012: year of the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Cameron to tackle "excess" City pay

WARNING: article contains a large picture of David Cameron.

It's hard to believe that the financial meltdown kicked off all the way back in 2008 because since then "the news" seems to have been a constant cycle of reports that the government is going to go after these naughty, cheeky little bankers. Tut tut. What do you call a promise that keeps getting promised over the course of years and repeated as if it is a new promise each time, without anything having been done in the time since you last promised it? Is it 'a lie', by any chance?

But don't worry because this time they really, honestly are going to tackle excessive executive pay, bonuses, perks, the ability to call up the Prime Minister and ask him to turn a blind eye to your abuses of power and then give you a job because he's your buddy... oh no sorry, they never said anything about that last one, making it pure conjecture that it ever happened. It is true conjecture, though.

I just find it very unlikely that Cameron will make any kind of movement towards cropping the salaries of the people who keep him in power and bring nice bottles of wine to his dinner parties. Any other action on his part would require him to have empathy for people he doesn't personally know and therefore to act as if they are sentient beings capable of suffering. This moral failing suggests to me that he possesses either a form of autism, or a form of cuntism. You decide.