Rotten Apples

Writer's Block, depression, laziness, whatever it may be, I just haven't felt the urge or need to write, about anything, for weeks now. Probably because, in these past weeks, I have done very little, and am becoming increasingly submissive to the lifetime role of a home-maker circa 1950.

March has taught me a couple of things. Firstly, that being optimistic is pointless, specifically regarding job interviews. And secondly, that taking acquaintances as housemates for an undetermined amount of time is a very bad idea, as acquaintances, as opposed to actual friends, are much more inclined to disregard everything you say to them, and turn your home into a pigsty/crack-den, forcing you to kick them out and hope to never see them again. Lesson learnt.

Also, my iMac, which is about 6 years old, has finally snuffed it, which could not come at a more inappropriate time. The "genius" who took a look at it at the Apple store in Covent Garden informed me that it would be about £200 to get it fixed, and when I told him I couldn't afford it, gave me a rather peculiar look, as if £200 was an extremely small amount of money indeed. And went on to say that a new computer of the same spec would be about £1000. More on that in a second.

So I am torn. On the one hand, I really, really hate PCs, and have no intention of ever owning one. On the other hand, a number of recent situations have led me to change my opinion of said company. Firstly, the iPhone 4 is kind of crap, but this is well-known fact so I feel no need to go into detail, other than to just say it seriously falls short of the competency I have come to expect of Apple products. Secondly, Apple isn't the company it was when I bought my iMac 6 years ago. For starters, my iMac cost about £500, not the £1000 that the guy in the shop stated to me. And the cheapest laptop they do, the tiny little MacBooks, are now pushing £1000 as well. I'm pretty sure they used to be less than half that not so long ago... So I am left with the question, what the fuck?

I became a die-hard Apple fan on the basis that I had a kick-ass computer that was really quite cheap, worked perfectly for 5+ years, and needed no extra crap such as virus protection; to use the cliché phrase, "it just worked". But now, the prices have rocketed, and after the iPhone 4 fiasco, I am sceptical whether apple products are worth the money any more. I certainly don't have, or will have, £1000 to spare any time soon. So I informed the "genius" who declared my computer fucked, that I could just go to Computer Exchange and get one of the same spec for about £400, and certainly wouldn't be buying a brand new one since the prices have bloated in fantastic American fashion since I last checked. I guess, just like many of my friends have stated, Apple has proved itself to be just another heartless capitalist company which is clearly putting profits over substance in recent years. It seems that many of my favourite companies, great when they have a small but devout customer base, are "selling out" for want of a better phrase, and selling to the masses causes them to lose their edge, their value, and ultimately, their appeal. Thus is the world. I can't really see myself using a different type of computer, being so accustomed to Macs at this point, but just under £1000 is money I don't have at this moment in time.

All this said, I still hold that grand Apple user stereotype: smugness. I will probably always look down my nose at Microsoft, because they are just, plain and simple, bottom-line, no arguments, shit. Completely and utterly. Only time will tell, but one thing is certain. Having to use a Microsoft PC at the moment is probably going to force me to take out a loan or something to buy a new Mac before long.

Got Blood?

I am aware that I am extremely late in commenting on the following trend, and don't so much want to critique it as just... comment. The trend, or what could be better known as craze, of which I speak, is vampires. What is it about vampires that has teenage girls screaming and fainting in fits of orgasmic fantasies? What is it about vampires that has pretty much all of us, watching or reading something about vampires? What is it about them that is so goddamned sexy?

First of all, I kind of hate the vampire thing (what a surprise). Because as soon as Twilight hit cinemas it suddenly became a cult. The kind of cult formed entirely of the teenage girls I mentioned above. It's not because I hated the very idea. Quite the contrary, I have 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King in illustrated hardback, and I have read a fair few of Anne Rice's books. I have the film adaption of Interview With the Vampire on DVD (Queen of the Damned was fucking shit but let's not go there), I like the older vampire films like The Lost Boys and Fright Night etcetera, etcetera. At university my affinity for horror waned. But nevertheless, I still remember what I really liked about the vampire genre that I had experienced: they were traditional. There was no freaky vampire sex. Just blood and gore. Because isn't that what being a vampire is all about?

Evidently not, because then it all changed. Twilight came along. And gave us vampires in the format of love and chastity, which is not exactly surprising when the author in question is a mormon. And what we have is a fairly ridiculous tale about a girl who falls in love with someone she can't have (a vampire), and it's all very allegorical and metaphorical blah blah blah. It's shit. The idea is unbelievably dull, and I imagine the producers of the film recognised this fact, since the film seems to rely almost entirely on the appearance of the characters. I don't know why anyone would find Robert Pattinson attractive, but clearly it was a master stroke, because young girls screech at the pasty sight of him (vomit). And it appears that with each new film, all that the Twilight saga does is add another few half naked guys to the cast, to keep the interest of it's fanbase (what more do you need when your fanbase is a teenage female cult?). What you have is a boring love affair between a girl and a vampire, and throw in a werewolf or two for good measure, and they manage to drag this out for film after film (and book after book I suppose) by showing the characters with their shirt off (and glittering: what the fuck is that about exactly?). Perhaps the intent of Stephanie Meyer was simply to promote her dogmatic religious agenda. It clearly wasn't because she's a passionate writer. To quote Stephen King, "[she] can't write worth a darn". What she succeeded in was creating a cult of teenage girls who want to fuck vampires and werewolves. Well done.

So is that all there is to it? Vampires are now sexy, and lovely, and tragic? No longer murderous and terrifying, they are things of beauty, and thus have gained a wider acceptance in popular culture? This would be a perfectly mundane and believable reason I suppose, but apparently it is not the case...

I'm not exactly sure whether it is precisely because of Twilight that Vampires have become the "in thing" recently, but it's certainly not unconnected. It's not all bad however, because at around the same time in 2008 that Twilight was released in cinemas, True Blood hit TV screens. Now, I admit that when I watched the first episode of True Blood, I hated the cliche storyline (which is almost exactly the same as Twilight) until I realised that is was all very satirical, and was actually very original. And with each new episode I grew to like it more. In many ways it is the exact opposite of Twilight. Whereas Twilight seems to be about chasitity, and preserving your virginity and a lot of sappy bollocks, True Blood gives in to urges, natural instincts, passions. Whereas Twilight is a love story and frankly nothing more, True Blood comments on various cultural and social issues, not least gay rights ("God hates fangs; Coming out of the coffin" - pure genius). Whereas Twilight is all very feminine, and gentile, and quaint (boooring), True Blood is gritty, and violent, and edgy. Two franchises based around exactly the same narrative, and where one fails so miserably, the other succeeds in being absolutely brilliant.

True Blood is most certainly not just another vampire show. I have been very much an avid fan of Allan Ball since watching Six Feet Under and American Beauty, and he certainly doesn't fail to deliver. It is both one of the darkest, and most hilarious shows I have ever seen; one of the most violent, and one of the soppiest; one of the most cliche, and one of the most original. And although it doesn't need to rely on the cast getting naked to win over its audience, it certainly doesn't hurt every now and again either (Hello Jason, Eric and Alcide). I have already mentioned what I like most about it, and that is the social issues involved (alongside the setting). Its harsh critique of humanity is TV at its best.

So the original stereotype of vampires being cold, and terrible and dangerous isn't completely done away with then. They are not integrated into modern society, at least not fully. What they are is trying, and raising a lot of questions about humanity's tendency to ostracise groups of people as demonstrated throughout history. I think the reason that vampires have become such a large part of modern entertainment is because of this questioning. They are the perfect critique of how human beings behave toward and treat each other. The big question that both Twilight and True Blood raise, is should vampires be treated the same as everyone else? Just as the same question has been raised about so many groups of people throughout history. And they are the perfect metaphor. They question humanity, and their anachronistic existence questions modern culture. The following quote from True Blood is a great example:

"Now the American Vampire League wishes to perpetrate the notion that we are just like you and I suppose in a few small ways we are. We're narcissists. We care only about getting what we want, no matter what the cost, just like you. Global warming, perpetual war, toxic waste, child labour, torture, genocide, that's a small price to pay for your SUVs and your flat-screen TVs, your diamonds, your designer jeans, your absurd garish McMansions. Futile symbols of permenance to quell your quivering spineless souls. But no, in the end, we are nothing like you. We are immortal. Because we drink the true blood. Blood that is living, organic and human. And that is the truth the AVL wishes to conceal from you because let's face it, eating people is a tough sale these days so they put on their friendly face to pass their beloved VRA but make no mistake, mine is the true face of vampires. Why would we seek equal rights? You are not our equals." Russell Edgington

Vampires are metaphors for groups of people worldwide who are demonised and treated with prejudice. Both now, and throughout history, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims, the list goes on, have faced prejudice and genoicide at he hands of humanity. I think there are a number of reasons for the surge in popularity of the vampire genre in the last year or two. Presenting them as shirtless hotties for teenage girls to drool over is one reason. Presenting them not so differently from people, and raising the question of whether it is okay to fall in love with them is another, and this is when it begins to break into modern society; race relations, sexuality etc. The most obvious one that True Blood focuses on is homosexuality, with all its stereotypes. The quote above gives the opinion of just one vampire, not an entire race, which is extremely applicable in a society dominated by generalised prejudice. But this is getting a bit deep...

Basically, I think vampires are popular because yes, I guess they are quite sexy, I'd like a vampire to drink my blood as much as the next person. But more importantly, I think the status of the vampire genre has risen in popularity because of this change or attempt to change perceptions from monsters or objects of fear/hate, to members of society. This is exactly what minorities have done throughout history, and continue to do now. Personally, I am all too familiar with this concept. Gay people are still branded as sick and immoral by religions the world over (exactly as vampires are branded in True Blood), and although we can be open about sexuality in the UK, other countries have a long way to go. It is the sense of struggle, or overcoming obstacles that people love to see so much in films. Harry Potter is another example of this. Honestly, I've dropped Twilight as an example because it's just not that meaningful:

"Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity [...] Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend" Andy Futral

So altogether, vampires have changed their image. They have a had a makeover. Now they can walk down the street and oh... they are hot. Sure, some people still hate them. The Westboro Baptist church have added another website to their list (www.godhatesfangs.com), but on the whole they are more accepted. You can even have a relationship with one now and (most) people won't judge you for it. My, what a progressive world we live in.

December Traditions

Ah December, you're an odd one. I feel good about you one year, and despise you the next. Birthday, Christmas, and (though not as much) New Year's. Two years ago I had my 20th birthday, and then spent Christmas in Berlin. Probably the best December I can recall. Last year was bad. This year was worse, because it was simply nothing special, and left me feeling more disillusioned than ever. A month that I used to love, it has gradually become one that I expect the worst from.

Birthdays become less appealing, and more depressing the older you get. Celebrate the big ones. Throw an awesome 18th birthday party and an even bigger 21st. Because that's the last one with all those good birthday-type feelings. Turning 22 makes you realise that every year you are just getting older, and that there's not much left to celebrate. Hell, I'll celebrate anyway, if only to detract from the nostalgia of how birthdays are when you're young. But feeling older just ain't what it used to be.

Christmas is much the same. But for quite different reasons. Christmas is something to be cherished when you are a kid, but has become something I have very few good feelings about. I don't hate Christmas per se. I like drinking from the moment I wake up, and I like the nice food, but that's about as far as my praise stretches. And the former doesn't come without criticism. What I do hate about Christmas is the way that we, Brits, celebrate it. I don't know exactly what the original meaning and traditions of Christmas are, but I'm pretty sure it isn't spending all the money you have on wrapping paper, a dead tree, an obscene amount of food and alcohol, and then spending all day in front of a TV screen. For two months or more every year we see tacky decorations cover buildings, the streets become crowded by masses of frustrated and hectic shoppers, and almost every store window becomes home to some gaudy festive display. And for what?

I sat on Christmas morning watching my younger sisters open hundreds of pounds worth of gifts, complain about most of them, and move on to the next, just like so many other children were doing across this country, and numerous others. And I couldn't help thinking about the greed. While we all opened our boxes and bags of colourful excess, and gorged ourselves on Christmas feasts, people elsewhere in the world continued to starve, and die, and live in poverty, whilst we remain oblivious. Christmas doesn't provide a relief for everyone. And all the months of preparation, and money spent, all the stress is, as my stepmother pointed out, for just a couple of hours, on one day out of 365.

I think it is safe to say now that the real reason for my distaste and dislike of Christmas stems almost entirely from my dislike of Capitalism. Like Valentine's Day, I think it's a way to pressure people into spending money, that many can barely afford in the current economic climate (I can barely afford to eat let alone buy gifts), all so the big corporations can boost their profits. And the fact that the Christmas decorations creep into the stores before Halloween in some instances just emphasises this season of consumerist excess.

Now I have had plenty of good Christmas's spent with my family. I am familiar with the arguments about getting time off work and spending time and money on the people you love and rarely get to see, and I can understand these reasons for liking Christmas as much as anyone else. But on a lower and more mundane level, it is all so on the nose. I enjoy walking around London without being barged about by angry Christmas shoppers, and without the addition of tacky lights and decorations. I enjoy hearing normal music in stores in December and not nauseating modern Christmas tunes on a loop (thanks Starbucks). And all the faux-Christmas cheer frankly just irritates me (Stop being so happy you freaks!) More than anything, I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

The Christmas season as it has come to be known, stretches on for around 8 weeks, and city life completely changes to accommodate it. But once all the wrapping paper is thrown out and all the food eaten, it's over, just like that. I have become bored with the routine of it. Spending Christmas in Berlin was good because it was a different country, with different traditions, and it was exciting. On Christmas day the public transport was running, the city centre was vibrant. People weren't sat at home watching bad TV and stuffing their faces. They were out at the markets with friends and family, ice skating, drinking, having fun with the rest of the city. Christmas in Britain is a victim of it's own traditions, traditions which don't appeal to me in the slightest.

And the month-long piss up continues on New Year's Eve, which is simply, the last chance to get shit-faced before making all those resolutions to change your habits. Now I'm not going to complain about parties. For New Year's Eve I went to Glow Ball/Squelcher at the Renaissance Rooms in Vauxhall, and had one of the best nights out of the year. I just don't really get it. It's a load of fuss and excitement over a clock hitting midnight; something that happens every night. It's a little strange to me, but when taken solely as an excuse to have a party or go to some amazing club it can't be a bad thing (unless the party is hugely disappointing, as has been the case for many NYEs of the past).

So 2010 is over. Let's be honest, it was a pretty shit year overall. I finished my degree and moved to London, only to be greeted by a Tory government, budget cuts, rising unemployment, rising VAT to name a few reasons. Cynical as always, I doubt that 2011 will be any better with the current political and economic circumstances, but we can hope. Can't we? My only resolution this year is to be more active. To keep up to date on the news by reading the paper, to take more approaches to actually finding a job because frankly, I am fucking sick of being broke, and to spend more time writing. Generally, I need to get out of this apartment more and enjoy living in London.

Goodbye 2010.

A Questioning of Leadership

The past few months, and more specifically weeks, has seen Britain, along with many other parts of the world, reaching an increasingly concerning state of affairs. Concerning, but oddly exhilarating in the anticipation of something boiling over, with more than one person mentioning to me in a not-so-jokingly manner that the apocalypse is near. With the Tory government attacking the underprivileged yet again, this time in the shape of the education system; The police proving themselves to be shockingly brutal in their reaction to both violent and non-violent protesters alike; The US Embassy cables, the release of the Afghan and Iraq War logs, and the arrest of Julian Assange. These events can only lead me to question where our freedom of information has gone (or ever was)? Where has our sense of justice gone? Where are our leaders?

Well they are supporting themselves of course, in the only way they know possible. By supporting the banks who rob us. And supporting the interests of oil companies, the uber-rich, the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy. They are not supporting the people who gave them their positions, and they are not supporting the beliefs and the foundations that their countries are built upon. Beliefs such as freedom of speech and information. WikiLeaks is chipping away at the wall that our leaders have built between themselves and us. It is providing us with some hard information that we so rightly deserve. Information that is not pretty, and is not positive in any sense of the word, other than that it is enlightening, and that it is truthful; an attribute that our governments are moving further and further away from. But it isn't enough. It has not reached the core of secrecy that our governments will do anything to keep from us. But if the leaders have their way it never will, because the tip of the iceberg that WikiLeaks has unveiled will only ever remain the tip.

Hillary Clinton can stand self-righteously behind her podium and tell the world that WikiLeaks is threatening national security, and undermining America's efforts to forge relationships with other countries in order to help them solve their problems. Because those efforts are not without ulterior motives. And who is more aware of this than the US Secretary of State? I can't say that I would behave differently were I put in her position, given the already unstable reputation America has for international relations, and with the weight of so many secrets on her shoulders ready to slip through the net and onto WikiLeaks. Solve the problems of other countries you say? Or solve the problem of decreasing resources in America and appease the companies who pull the strings of the White House?

And it is not surprising to learn of the lengths that America is going to in order to see Assange disappear: Accused of treason (may I remind you that Assange is Australian and that you are not the rulers of the world, no matter what your imaginary friends tell you); Calls for him to be assassinated by US Special Forces (subtlety was never their strong point); Declared a transnational threat (because America are the pinnacle of stability); And of course that incontinent, illiterate cow Sarah Palin has likened him to Osama Bin Laden (but like anyone takes her seriously). These melodramatic sentiments however, can only be expected from a country as backward, as immoral, as shameless and megalomaniacal as the United States of (Corruption) America. Perhaps the White House is experiencing some trepidation at the possibility of it becoming clear that the Obama Administration bares little difference to the last under Bush, and that the not-so-White House may soon become painted with blood.

But let me stop for a second and view with some perspective the increased use of the word apocalypse in recent conversations. The tripling of tuition fees in England means that for millions of underprivileged children, a university education would no longer be an option. Public unrest increases. George Osborne proves that he... twisted his promises shall we say, regarding the actions to be taken against the banks. Public frustration increases. Images are released of police kettling protesters around parliament until 11pm, using unnessary and unjustified force, and potentially putting the lives of peaceful protesters at risk. Public disillusionment increases. Footage comes to light of disabled reporter Jody McIntyre being tipped out of his wheelchair by police and dragged along the street, to the anger and helplessness of those around him who, if they were to step forward, would be beaten to the ground. And the BBC continue to tell us that the students are the real thugs. Public outrage increases. And now Julian Assange faces further imprisonment with the announcement that Sweden are set to challenge bail, all because he had the resolve to expose the crimes that our governments are committing behind closed doors and guarded fences.

And that's not to mention all the national disasters that seem to be on the rise because of global warming. Would these events be occuring in the "free world" that Hillary and Obama are supposedly fighting for? Would they take place in the "big society" that the Conservatives laid out in their manifesto, or the world that Nick Clegg so charismatically promised? Or would they take place in the world of Orwell, of Huxley, and of Mieville?

We are living in an increasingly frightening and unsettling world when our police forces, put there to protect us, are the ones beating us down into the pavement. Where women are whipped in public for wearing trousers. Where our governments are the puppets of capitalist corporations and no longer work in the people's interests. When you don't need a valid reason to start a war, and when people like David Kelly are assassinated for pointing this out. If the powers that be have their way, Julian Assange will be extradited to Sweden, and from there to america, where he will be "disposed of accordingly". The only positive outlook that I can take in the event that such circumstances come to pass, is that this be the final straw necessary to break the camel's back, and lead the people to... act accordingly. But if this is the direction that this country is travelling, I suggest changing the name at the top of the new 300m tall pyramidal structure in central London from "Shard" to "Ministry of Truth" and blacking out all the windows, because it is clear that the country's leaders are employed in deceit, amongst other things.

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.