Controversy: the new Heroin?

Something has been brought to my attention today regarding the subject of controversy. Something which has disappointed and annoyed me and which I would like to address.

The thing that I am speaking of, which I am sure will be common knowledge to everyone before the week is up, is an outfit that Lady Gaga wore to the Video Music Awards this month; an outfit made of raw meat. Firstly, I saw her picture on the cover of Vogue sporting a meat bikini a few days ago, and I wasn't shocked by this. A little grossed out, but hey, it's Vogue, I assumed it was making some obscure statement, which I can usually accept with fashion (except fur, which I will never accept), because fashion is, after all, a form of art, and artists have done far worse.

But I have to draw a line here. Don't get me wrong, I am not a "hater"; one of those people who records videos of themselves to post on YouTube. I love Lady Gaga, I have listened to The Fame Monster for months on end, and know most of the choreography to Bad Romance and Telephone, and I usually adore her outfits. Until now. This "dress", along with shoes and purse, is not awe-inspiring. It is disgusting. It is not cool. It is offensive. And worst of all, I can't even find a valid point behind it. She stated that she didn't want to wear "just another award show dress", but since when has Lady Gaga ever worn just and award show dress? She also said that it worked alongside her protest against the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality within the armed forces, and that "if we don't stand up for what we believe in, we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones." Now is that a valid and structured reason, or a vague and roundabout justification for a blatant attempt at controversy? She has reached a plateau at which the Lady Gaga effect of shock and surprise has begun to ebb, as the public become accustomed to her outlandish outfits, so larger steps must be taken for the same effect, kind of like drug addiction. Only in this case she hurdled, and overdosed.

A meat dress, I ask you. The cover of Vogue wasn't enough? She had to have a dress made for the VMAs? An article in a fashion magazine is one thing, which I can just about put up with. But to walk around a ceremony dressed in rotting animal flesh is something quite different. Something beyond tolerable. Now although her past outfits haven't exactly been to everyone's taste, they could still be considered beautiful or at the very least interesting in their own respect. People may turn up their noses and brand them "ridiculous" or "silly", but not necessarily "revolting" or "offensive". This is both of those things and worse, because it makes no significant statement/ And at the risk of sounding like a typically opinionated vegan, I quote PETA in saying that "meat is the decomposing flesh of a tormented animal, and after a few hours under the TV lights, it would smell like the rotting flesh that it is." Vegetarianism aside, I can't imagine that many carnivores appreciate the Meat Dress either. This is no less offensive to me than the infamous pictures which surfaced of the Iraqi prisoners, tortured by US Military Personnel at Abu Ghraib. And this is precisely why my stance is so passionate. Because people are free to dress up in the shredded skin of a pig and it's forgotten in a few weeks, but people like Ed Gein, who used human skin went down in history as one of the most notorious and hated serial killers of all time. Why then, are human rights and animal rights so different? I would just like to say thank you Lady Gaga, for completely undermining the opinions of every animal rights activist for a frivolous publicity stunt.

Returning to the first point, why was this even necessary? To stand out in the crowd? When you are Lady Gaga I'm pretty sure that blending into the background hasn't been an option for quite a while now. To have her opinions about the US Military heard? Her opinion on this has been common knowledge for months now already (without the need of animal carcasses). So what? Publicity remains the only conceivable reason. But exactly how much publicity does one person need?

Pope Benedict XVI: Leader of Bigotry

Anyone who knows me will know about my passionate stance on religion. For those who don't, I despise it. It happens that whilst wandering around Facebook today in my everyday boredom, I noticed an article that had appeared in my news feed with the title, "David Cameron offers a very warm welcome to Pope Benedict XVI", which prompted me to comment"

"Thanks a lot Cameron, for using our taxes to welcome a bigoted, hypocritical, backwards Catholic ass like the Pope to London. Let's remember what the real problems that the world faces are shall we; not war, or famine, or religion, no. It's the gays and contraception. I will most definitely be attending the protest against the visit and hope many others will be joining me."

Now I admit that I allowed my irritability to get the better of me and placed the blame directly on Cameron, when it was in fact Gordon Brown who made the invite, so I have been informed. However, this was apparently also just the push necessary for my support of the Tories to wane, and for me to see them for what they really are: religiously-oriented, traditionalist, class-obsessed Eaton-pricks with no understanding of anyone outside the aristocracy. This hasn't suddenly sprouted from Cameron welcoming the Pope, but everything has a catalyst. And this led me to a very lengthy argument with various people on Facebook regarding the so called pros, and the cons of the Pope's visit to London.

Now this is what I find really frightening; the fact that people who are well educated and intelligent, and have historical knowledge at their disposal, can still stand up for the Catholic church. As the argument went on, I admit that I began to exaggerate (for example by saying that Catholics believe homosexuality to be a bigger threat than terrorism or war), but I don't think I was veering completely away from the truth. The Pope has said that fighting homosexuality is as important as saving the world's ecosystem. The fact that an educated person can then defend such a crudely inhumane public figure frankly infuriates me.

And I cannot help but believe that anyone entering into a debate about bigotry with the statement "As an American.." invalidates their entire argument. From America you say? The land of freedom and democracy? Or the country so corrupt it has lost any sense of the values laid out in its own constitution? The Separation of Church and State; boy did you fuck that one up. And the Anti-religious bigotry that you speak of I guess comes in contrast to religion's history of love and equality? May I remind you that America is the home of Scientology, of Mormonism, and of the Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for their brutally hateful stance on almost everything, particularly homosexuality. "Christians don't judge so neither should you." What a crock of shit.

Where does humanity stand if 1.2 billion people worldwide agree with someone who says that homosexuality is a bigger problem than the destruction of the planet? Someone who exploits people in the third world countries by telling them that wearing a condom is more dangerous than the AIDS virus they will catch if they don't? And follows two thousand year old scriptures who state such nonsense, alongside the benefits of slavery and the death sentence for anyone who works on a sunday? I have another question; when does the inconsistency end? If gays are still being crucified for their sexuality, then should we not be burning people for wearing garments made from two different cloths? No, because that would be ridiculous... It is the 21st Century, and although many of the Bible's teachings have been left in the dust of a previous age where they belong, Catholicism still keeps it's grip on a select few. Why? Do you not think that in another two thousand years, people will look back at the lives of people today as uncomprehendingly as we do. These are the Dark Ages of the future, where equality and peace are far from being reached, and billions of people still allow their lives to be dictated for the benefit of a few select individuals like the Pope. I wish I could be around in another two thousand years, in the hope that the majority of the planet wouldn't be wasting their lives worrying about what happens when they die, and just lived them.

Londinium

When you come from way up North in York like I do, the question of "why on earth would you want to move to London?" is a question I expected, and have, been asked many times. So I think this is a good enough place to answer with some perspective, and try to clear up a few misconceptions. Firstly, I want to diminish the idea that moving to London was a mistake. Even living on benefits, desperately seeking work again, scraping the bottom of my overdraft (waiting for my first JSA payment), I can't honestly say that I wish I hadn't moved. Yes I could have stayed in Birmingham, or moved to Manchester, and probably had more money to spare, but I got tired of doing things that I didn't want to do. So...

"It's way too big" : I did discover a couple of days ago that it takes two hours to walk to Trafalgar Square, or just under and hour by public transport. But the term big is relative in terms of good or bad. Capital cities are big generally, because of the jobs available and the amount of people, meaning there is more to do, and if I were so inclined, would probably never have to go to the same place twice. I don't really know how to respond to this statement because I don't see it as a bad thing. I like being able to jump on a tube train and jump off at whichever station, and wander the streets, finding new districts, new shops, new bars, and add them to the growing list of places to vist in future. Birmingham is supposedly second city, so it isn't exactly small. But after the living there for over two years I felt that I knew it inside and out, and needed a change. I don't think I will ever get to know London inside and out, at least not all of it. The fact that there are so many towns and districts within the city limits, each with a completely different lifestyle, appearance and atmosphere, keeps it exciting. Breadth and variety are usually seen as a good thing.

"It's too fast-paced" : When you step off the bus or the tube in London, you fall into the stream of people who are rushing to be somewhere, and this is one of the things that I love most. I would agree that it's not to everyone's taste, but coming from Yorkshire, where no-one has a clue where they want to be or why, it's great to see people with direction. Yes it's fast paced, but I only have to wait a couple of minutes for the next tube train, and transport runs 24 hours. When visiting Devon I found places where busses run once every 30 minutes and stop running at 9pm, which was frankly mind boggling. I guess some people like a relaxed lifestyle, where they know their neighbours and chat to strangers at the bus stop. I guess I just prefer efficiency.

"People in London are rude" : I would say this is definitely a misconception. I was in Bradford a couple of weeks ago, which happened to be the same weekend that there was a BNP/NDL march. I am aware that the BNP/NDL have followers nationally, but that doesn't excuse the rest of the people in Yorkshire who I find to be overwhelmingly intolerant and closed-minded. There are higher levels of racism and bigotry, and people are far more likely to make comments if you look out of the ordinary. I am aware this can be seen as generalising, but it comes down to diversity. The capital has multitudes of different people, different races, different scenes, different opinions, so no-one is really surprised by anything. You can look however you like and people don't really look twice. I enjoy living in a city of acceptance, not one of stereotypes. Furthermore, that people keep to themselves and enjoy privacy here has it's good points; they won't insult you because of the way you look for a start.

"It's too expensive" : An assumption that is hard to disprove. I went to the Barbican a few weeks ago and spent £4 on a bottle of beer. And rent is very high. But it's to be expected when you have so much on offer. Countless museums, art galleries, theatres, restaurants, clubs, bars, shops, not to mention the history, and just being here. Rent may be expensive, but the travel is cheap, and there are plenty of places where you can buy a cheap drink. You just have to find them, which is half the fun.

I spend quite a lot of time on Skyscraper City looking through the forums, and one criticism I see mentioned with regularity is the skyline of London, or rather the lack of one. People have an obsession with comparing London with New York or Paris, or Los Angeles, and dismissing it on the height of it's buildings. Skylines seem to be becoming more symbolic of a city's status, so let's settle this rationally. Cities like New York and Hong Kong had limited land to build on, so were forced to build upwards, and their skylines have become increasingly iconic. London had no need to build upwards because it could sprawl outwards. I agree that this is a problem if you are in a rush to be somewhere (which would explain somewhat why Londoners are always running around), but the lack of skyline is no longer necessarily true. We have the Docklands developments, and the City is overgrown with cranes building taller, and more unique skyscrapers. I don't believe, like pompous conservatives, that skyscrapers ruin London's image. They are a necessity in a city which is ever expanding, and add diversity to an already diverse city, create more space and more jobs. The one thing that cities like New York and LA have over London is a skyline. They have none of the history, or the tradition, and before long, London will have it's own iconic skyline to counter this rather frivolous argument.

Lost in the Void

It has been over two months since I left Birmingham and made one of the biggest decisions of my life: to move to London. At the time, everything seemed great. I had a job waiting, my overdraft as a lifeline, and a plan, albeit a rather vague one. But as was kind of anticipated, it hasn't worked out at all like I hoped it would. My job was commission only, and required me to work endless hours, sapping more money on travel than it paid, on many random and mostly unnecessary trips to the outskirts of London and beyond, to horrible wastelands like Devon even, which is way beyond my comfort zone. So after six weeks of working in a dingy, unorganised shit-hole of an office, with a group of people best described as a cult, and learning how quickly a grand can disappear in London, I quit. More specifically, I had a couple of friends stay over one Thursday night, got talking about how much I hated my job, and didn't set an alarm for the next day. Or the next. So ultimately, like quite a few other graduates I know, I am on benefits. So after two weeks (or more, I have lost track of the days) of sat in the apartment leafing through sales and marketing jobs in all their deceptive guises, and giving up in exasperation, I'm going to make use of my spare time and thoughts by trying to keep up with blogging. As much as I intend it to be meaningful, and not just a mixture of cynicisms and complaints, due to the current circumstances it may inevitably end up that way, so for anyone interested enough to read this, sorry about that.