Thoughts on Stupid Things

I am doing my utmost to find more positive subjects to write about. Unfortunately these days, pieces of good news are few and far between. I promise my first post of 2015 will be positive. However I do want to have one last rant in 2014. One YouTuber I recently subscribed to is called Steve Shives. He makes many videos where he picks five stupid things about a subject and talks a little about them. I love his videos so I'm going to emulate that here.

Hey, here are five stupid things I've noticed about British Politics.

1. The first past the post system.

The first past the post system means that in your constituency you vote and who ever receives the most votes becomes the Member of Parliament (MP) for that constituency. Here's the problem. Let's look at Constituency X where 40% of the people voted for the Conservatives, 30% voted for the Labour Party, 20% voted for UKIP and 10% voted for the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative candidate wins despite the fact that 60% of the constituency voted for someone else. This is not a hypothetical scenario either, in fact it gets worse. During the last election in 2010 in the Norwich South constituency the winning candidate won with a mere 29.4% of the vote. That doesn't seem overly democratic to me. Speaking of things that aren't very democratic...

2. The House of Lords.

The upper house of the British parliament is not democratic at all. The House of Lords is currently made up of 792 Lords. Of the 792, 26 of them are known as the Lords Spiritual who are members of the Church of England. No matter what those 26 seats in the Lords are reserved for such clergymen. Of the other 766, 92 of them are hereditary peers. These people are the descendants of landowners who were granted titles by kings and queens past. The other 674 are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister or the House of Lords Appointment Commission. These people are often former politicians (like the Lord Prescott and the Lord Mandelson) or people who endorsed political parties (like the Lord Sugar and the Baroness Brady). I believe the House of Lords needs serious overhaul. It's not the only thing either that needs changing...

3. Prime Minister's Questions.

Let me clarify something here. I am completely in favour of making it mandatory for the Prime Minister to answer questions posed to him by other members of parliament. What's stupid is how it is carried out. First of all the MPs behave like football fans. They cheer and jeer on cue and just generally make noise. What's more the questions posed could generally be reframed into one of two questions. The first one is "Would the Prime Minister please bend over so I can kiss his arse?" The second one is "Would the Prime Minister please swivel on this?" with a raised middle finger. If we are going to pose questions to the Prime Minister (and we absolutely should) we should shut the members up and give the Prime Minister proper questions to answer. Speaking of Prime Ministers...

4. The stranglehold the Conservative and Labour Parties have on Downing Street.

Ok I'm very sorry for that awful segue. I really am. The point however is valid. If you want to find a Prime Minister who wasn't a member of the Labour or Conservative Parties, you need to go back a few years. His name was David Lloyd George, who was a member of the now defunct Liberal Party (In 1988 it merged with the Social Democratic Party to form the Liberal Democrats). If you know your history, then you may know that David Lloyd George was the Prime Minister during World War I. He was Prime Minister from 1916-1922, so it has been 92 years since the UK had a Prime Minister who wasn't a member of the Labour or Conservative Parties. I have no segue at all for this last one, so I'll just go ahead and say it...

5. The Liberal Democrats

In America there's the Democrats and the Republicans and that's it. In Britain we have Labour, the Conservatives and many smaller parties (although UKIP is getting bigger). However in Britain we have a party that isn't as big as Labour or the Conservatives, but they are bigger than the others. They are the Liberal Democrats. Now I will admit that I used to be a fan of the Liberal Democrats, but over the last four and a half years, they've shown themselves to be inept puppets of the conservative party. Their leader Nick Clegg has stated he'd be open to a coalition with the Labour Party as well showing us all that he doesn't care who's hand is up his arse. These days the Liberal Democrats are losing popularity hand over fist, but whether it will translate into electoral losses in Westminster remains to be seen.

As Steve Shives always says "The hardest part is only picking five". I must say I know what he means now. 

Have a happy new year everybody!

Steven

Thoughts on Perceptions

I am an atheist. I've said that many times before and I'll probably say it many more times. It's easy for me to say this living in Switzerland because Switzerland is a very tolerant place. In some other places however, me saying those words could get me killed. I know I talk a lot about American politics, but the way atheists are perceived in America is bad. While saying your an atheist may not necessarily get you killed, it can certainly kill your political ambitions. Normally I write a piece expressing my opinion, but this time I want to ask a question. The same question a poll asked Americans.

The first question is a fill in the blank and then answer. 

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be ________, would you vote for that person?

Here are the answers and how Americans responded (Yes-No)

Black (96-4)

a Woman (95-5)

Catholic (94-5)

Hispanic (92-7)

Jewish (91-6)

Mormon (80-18)

Gay or Lesbian (68-30)

Muslim (58-40)

Atheist (54-43)

Those numbers indicate those who gave a definitive answer. Some people were unsure.

Ok, a quick opinion from me. The fact that all of those numbers aren't 100-0 is quite frankly ridiculous. What's even crazier is that 43% of people wouldn't vote for a well-qualified person from their own party simply because they lacked belief in a god.

Here's another question. This one asks about how likely someone is to vote for someone. 

In this scenario we have Candidate X, who you know nothing about. How would each of these traits impact your likelihood of supporting a candidate?

Here are the traits and how Americans responded (More likely-Less Likely-No Effect) (Total Swing)

Candidate X _________

Served in the military (43-4-53) (+39)

was a Governor (33-5-59) (+28)

was a Business Executive (33-13-53) (+20)

Attended a prestigious university (19-6-74) (+13)

is a Woman (19-9-71) (+10)

is in their 40s (16-6-77) (+10)

is an Evangelical Christian (21-17-58) (+4)

is a Catholic (9-8-81) (+1)

is Hispanic (9-9-80) (0)

has Washington experience (19-30-48) (-11)

has used Marijuana (6-22-70) (-16)

is Homosexual (5-27-66) (-22)

is in their 70s (6-36-55) (-30)

has had an Extramarital affair (2-35-61) (-33)

has Never held political office (9-52-37) (-43)

is an Atheist (5-53-41) (-48)

Ok first of all, who the hell are the 2% more likely to vote for someone who has had an extra-martial affair? Yes that's the guy I want, the guy who cheats on his wife. Once again though, atheists are at the bottom of the pile. More than half of the people surveyed said they would be less likely to vote for an atheist.

So here's the question I'm asking to anyone religious, American or both? Why the negative perception of atheists? 

Thoughts on the War on Christmas

It's Christmas everyone! I didn't think we'd have one this year because those damn secularists want to take away this season of goodwill and arrest anyone who says "Merry Christmas". Well that's what you'd think if you watch Fox News in America. Every year, regular as clockwork, they resurrect the zombie lie that is the War on Christmas. Now as a secularist, I am obviously on the front lines of this "conflict" and I must say, it has been an absolute disaster! Christmas is still as popular as ever! Hell it's almost as if there is no War on Christmas! For clarification, I will be focusing on America because most other countries don't seem to kick up a fuss.

A quick search on wikipedia has shown me that there are five holidays celebrated on 25th December. It is the last day of Pancha Ganapati, a Hindu festival in honour of Ganesha who is revered as the remover of obstacles. It is also the start of Hanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights. In Pakistan, they celebrate Quaid-i-Azam's Day in honour of the Quiad-i-Azam (Great Leader) and founder of their country Muhammad Ali Jinnah. We secularists have Newtonmas which is a celebration of Isaac Newton's birthday. Now I'd be surprised if any of those holidays received even a fraction of the attention as the fifth holiday: Christmas Day. If there is a war on Christmas, it seems to be at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. Perhaps we are using the wrong weapons to bring Christmas down... Wait what exactly are we doing?

It seems the secularists have three weapons they like to use. The first isn't so much a weapon, but a lack of compliance. Some people don't put the Christmas lights up on their house. Yes that's step one. Then I guess peer pressure then causes the neighbours to take down their lights and we have a domino effect from there. This would be ingenious were it not for the fact the those without lights are in the minority and a lack of lights is seen by most of us as lacking in any kind of importance. What else do the secularists do? Well they oppose placing nativity scenes in public places. Well this is not entirely true. They simply point out that if one religion gets to display a scene from their religion, the other religions and secularists too. Hindu's should be allowed to place something honouring Ganesha, Secularists should be able to place a statue of Isaac Newton in the public space. I think America has something that states that is the way things should be done, it's called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. So our final weapon is perhaps the worst of all. The secularist will bid farewell with two bone-chilling words: Happy Holidays. This is what really frightens the Fox News viewer because Christmas is lumped in with the other holidays as if it isn't special! They fail to see that us secularists simply want to wish people celebrating any and all holidays a good one, even those who celebrate Christmas! What I'm saying is: Get a grip!

Look if you really want to be mad at someone for ruining Christmas, I know who to blame. That person is Saint Nicholas. He is the basis for one Santa Claus who has taken Christmas away from Jesus. The Dutch must take some blame for their depiction of St. Nicholas or Sinterklaas. Coca-Cola must also hold their hands up as they really push this Santa Claus on the public. Parents the world over who tell their children to behave for Santa are guilty in this too! Their war on Christmas has been much more successful than ours!

Wait a minute. I'm being an idiot! There is no war on Christmas! You can't escape it! Christmas songs everywhere, Christmas films, Christmas specials of TV Shows, do I need to go on? You know what, I won't. I'll end here by say Happy Holidays!

Thoughts on Social Anxiety

This post is one I really hope will go down well. I'm going to talk about something that has plagued and crippled me for a very long time. I suffer from social anxiety. Whenever it comes to meeting new people, the idea scares me. The thought of befriending someone I don't know very well scares me. Even the thought of seeing someone I know in a social situation scares me, unless they are a very good friend of mine. With this post I want to try and help people who are social anxious themselves and others who know someone who is socially anxious.

To all those who are socially anxious, I would offer the following pieces of advice. First, make sure you're with a friend who knows you well and who excels in the social situations you struggle with. The confidence they have will have an affect on you and you will start to feel more confident with them. Second, if you feel like you need a drink or something else to help yourself out, then have a drink. Sure getting absolutely plastered will only serve to give you a false sense of confidence. A drink or two on the other hand gives you a slight boost, yet you remain in control and aware. Treat these like training wheels on a bike. Sure you want them at first, but always aim to be confident without them. Third, realise that you are as valuable as you make yourself. If you start dressing nicely, smelling good, keeping to a vision you have for yourself, others will see it too. With confidence, pretend to have confidence. I am painfully aware of how hard this is. My recommendation would be to create a character for yourself. I do this myself. Steven Rowing becomes Steven Rivers, a man who knows no anxiety. Somehow playing a character helps the situation as it is no longer you being judged by those you are meeting. Eventually you will come to realise that the character doesn't exist and that it is and always has been you. 

To those who know someone who is socially anxious, you must know this above all: It's not just shyness. These people feel a genuine fear of what might happen during these encounters. Have patience with them. They are more often than not, low on self-esteem and a friend on their side is what they need (don't over do it though). Try and include them in what is happening, but don't force it. Bear in mind that they are probably relying on you to be their friend in this giant mess they've found themselves in. Another thing to bear in mind is that they are probably there because they are trying to overcome their anxiety. It may look like they are falling flat on their faces, but this is down to a lack of knowing what to do. They lack the knowledge you might take for granted. You might even be unaware of how you know what to do in these situations. Be there for them, build them up and alway remember that they are trying.

I really can't stress enough how important this is to me. I also can't stress enough how hard I have found it especially living in a foreign country. I really hope that I've helped someone with this article in some small way. Remember, we are trying, just be patient with us!

Thoughts on Questions

I haven't posted for a couple of days and I really should. So today I'm going to do something a little bit different. There's a website called todaychristian.net who have ten questions that apparently atheists cannot answer truly and honestly. Naturally this caught my attention, so here I am going to answer each of these questions. Just so you know, I am not making these up either: http://todaychristian.net/10-questions-every-atheist/

1. How did you become an atheist?

I did not have a religious upbringing, my parents were both agnostics during my early years. I did however go to a religious school where we prayed everyday in assembly and before lunch and we also sang hymns on Thursdays. I believed what they told me about God and Jesus, Noah's ark and other biblical stories. My atheism started when my older brother and his friends stopped praying during the assemblies. I copied them because I thought they were cool (please bear in mind that I was 5 at the time). When I stopped believing, I never started believing again. I didn't really think about it seriously until I was 15 when I decided I was not only an atheist, but a new atheist and later on an anti-theist. The reason I decided this was because there was no evidence to prove God's existence. It's really that simple. 

2. What happens when we die?

This is the easiest question to answer because my answer is extremely simple: I don't know. I imagine we just cease to be. What really bugs me about this question though is that Christians don't answer this question honestly. They have their answer with heaven and hell, but the honest answer for all of us is that we don't know. Something I have noticed is that the difference between the theist and the atheist is that the atheist isn't afraid of those three words: I don't know.

3. What if you're wrong? And there is a heaven? And there is a HELL!

Well I guess I'm really up shit creek. This question is funny because even someone as stupid as Homer Simpson can see that it applies to Christians as well. "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." What if the Muslims have the right god? What if the Zoroastrians are the enlightened ones? What if it's the old Norse religion? What if the tribal religion of a small tribe in Africa is the one true faith? What if the one true faith is one we haven't come up with yet? It's like you're playing the lottery and I'm not. Sure you have a better chance in winning than I do, but your chances are still extremely slim.

4. Without God, where do you get your morality from?

I get my morals from my parents, society in general, but mostly from myself. Why don't I go out raping at night? Well I wouldn't want to be raped, I imagine that would traumatise me. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I do not need religion or a deity to teach me right from wrong. I'd also like to think that your belief in God isn't the only thing preventing you from being the next Ted Bundy.

5. If there is no God, can we do what we want? Are we free to murder and rape? While good deeds are unrewarded?

This is a scary question and I am now hoping that whoever wrote this one remains religious forever. How do I put this? NO! Are you insane? We have a justice system for a reason and murderers and rapists get punished by this system. Just because there's no eternal judgement for people, doesn't mean bad deeds go unpunished. Sometimes like with Jimmy Saville, we don't find out about their crimes until they've died and this is awful. However we aren't free to murder and rape because as a society and individuals, we finds such acts morally repugnant.

6. If there is no god, how does your life have any meaning?

Well people are affected by my acts. Not all of us will go down as people who changed the world, but if we just dropped dead, some things would change. That's how our lives have meaning. This is not dependent on the existence of a supernatural being. You give your life meaning by who you are and what you do.

7. Where did the universe come from?

Well the Big Bang Theory seems to be the best scientific answer, but there's still some unanswered questions regarding it. I suppose the most honest answer would be the same answer I gave to question 2. I don't know, but nobody does! Some people may believe that God simply created the universe with the snap of his fingers, but that has as much merit as the beliefs of the Jatravartids who believe the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

8. What about miracles? What about all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints and angels?

I'll start with miracles. While I may like the song by Hot Chocolate, I do not believe in miracles. Every so called miracle either never happened or has a rational explanation. Moving on, some people claim to have a connection with Jesus. I have no doubt that these people genuinely believe they have this connection, but I imagine it's just one of those funny feelings people get. A feeling is also just a feeling, it's not proof of anything. Some people claim to have seen saints and angels. People see what they see, but just because you see something, doesn't mean it's actually there. I've never seen anything resembling a saint or an angel, but even if I did, I'd assume I was hallucinating.

9. What's your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?

I greatly admire them. Professor Richard Dawkins was really the one who made think about atheism and exposed me to the new atheist movement. Christopher Hitchens was insanely intelligent and listening to him turned me into an anti-theist. Sam Harris I see as blend of the two as he has the scientific knowledge of Dawkins and the wit of Hitchens. Are any of them perfect? No, of course not, I have no doubt that on some subjects I will disagree with them, but that's because Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and myself are all human. 

10. If there is no god, why does every society have a religion?

Well it all goes back to times when we were all scientifically ignorant. When little drops of water fell on the heads of our ancestors, they wanted to know why, but didn't know how to figure it out. So they assumed that some deities were controlling the world. These days monotheism is more prevalent because it's easier to pray to one god than many. Religion became an important part of a person's identity and as such it was passed down to younger generations. This is also a version of the bandwagon fallacy. Just because an idea is popular, that doesn't make it true.

So, those are my honest answers. Those questions were easier than I expected...

Steven

Thoughts on a Pot Calling a Kettle Black

The United States are doing me a massive favour. They keep giving me things to write about. So before I start having a go at them, I want to say thank you. I enjoy taking the piss out of you lot and you make it so, so easy so thank you. Ok, onto the issue at hand, what has the United States been doing? Well President Obama has attempted to normalise relations with Cuba. Now when Obama does anything, Republicans will find a way to get pissed off about it. Now if I wanted to be fair to Republicans I would say that criticising Cuba's human rights record is a valid criticism, but I don't want to be fair so I'll say this: The pot shouldn't call the kettle black (I'm talking to you Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both think that the United States having normal relations with Cuba would be like having normal relations with North Korea. That's a bit of a stretch, but both countries have been known to abuse human rights and the United States cannot be seen to have good relations with human rights abusers... except Saudi Arabia. The Saudis enforce a brand of Islam that is extremely radical. The only difference between Saudi Arabia and Islamic State is that Saudi Arabia is an established state that isn't seeking to expand its borders. You might claim that IS beheads infidels. So do the Saudis, in fact were I in Saudi Arabia, I would be put to death as atheism is punishable by death. Saudi Arabia is also one of six absolute monarchies left in the world (another one being Qatar who the US are also friendly with). Does that count as being run by a tyrant? Cuba has kept power within one family, North Korea has too. Why are they evil tyrants, but Saudis are good tyrants? What does Saudi Arabia have that Cuba and North Korea doesn't?  (Oil)

So apart from Saudi Arabia, America does not associate with countries that abuse human rights... except Israel. Israel is a country that is literally occupying other countries. The West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights are Syrian. So how does Israel treat the citizens of the occupied territories? Well they recently massacred over 2000 civilians in Gaza because three Israelis was killed and Israel blamed Hamas (Hamas denied this and it has since been proven that they didn't do it). Like America, I don't want to be fair to Israel so I'll also point out that Prime Minister Netanyahu's Likud party actually isn't interested in peace with Palestine. They want peace without Palestine. It's literally part of their manifesto. So why would American politicians fall over themselves to defend Israel's actions? (AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies)

So apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel, what human rights abusing countries do the United States have normalised relations with? China, Qatar, Russia (to an extent), Egypt, Pakistan (that's a complicated relationship), Bahrain and those are the current ones. The United States also had relations with pre-revolution Iran (Under the Shah), Pinochet's Chile, Mobutu's Zaire, South Vietnam, Armas' Guatemala, Gaddafi's Libya (it was an on-off relationship) Rhee's South Korea, Saddam's Iraq (There was a nasty break-up though), the list goes on. Here's a fun fact: All those human-rights abusing dictators were all American backed, with many of them replacing democratically elected leaders! But how could I forget this last one? Fulgencio Batista who ran a small island about 90 miles off the coast of Florida. I believe it's called CUBA! In fact American influence in Cuba was so great under Batista that while he was the most powerful man in Cuba, the second most powerful man was the American ambassador. What happened to Fulgencio Batista anyway? He was overthrown in a revolution led by one Fidel Castro. Oh I'm beginning to see that this whole thing is merely a petty act of spite.

I'll end with this. The United States doesn't want relations with countries that abuse human rights. Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio say America must be the standard-bearer. This the same week that a report came out detailing how America tortures prisoners. Not to mention the things we already know like how they spy on their citizens, overthrow governments and wage war based on false pretences. This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. This is the emptiness of space calling the kettle and the pot black.

Thoughts on Feminism

Over the past few months there's been a lot of talk about feminism. I'll admit even now I'm still not entirely sure what gamergate was all about, but to be honest I don't care much either. What does interest me is the whole feminist movement. I must admit I've never seen a more diverse movement. People of all genders have aligned themselves to it, people of all beliefs and people of all ages. It's very impressive. The goals of the feminist movement are also very worthwhile. The abolition of the wage gap between the sexes, protection of women on college campuses and all in all achieving equality of the sexes. Of course there are some who go too far (as with all causes), but for the most part it's a just movement that I could get behind. "Could" being the key word here as right now, I do not identify as a feminist. Here's why.

I am very much aware that the radical voices of the feminist movement are the minority. I am aware that the majority of feminists are rational people (although time on the internet does make me doubt this). The fact remains however that the loudest voices of feminism are misandrist voices who don't want gender equality, but female superiority. These people will see sexism everywhere. They will employ double standards regarding how men and women are treated. It's people like them that make the feminist movement toxic to people like myself. I would be thrilled if the first thing that sprung to mind when feminism was mentioned was Emma Watson giving her brilliant speech, but unfortunately she stills lags far behind.

Feminists like to define feminism as the belief that the sexes are equal. Now before I make my point, I wish to clarify a few things. Anyone who believes that women are equal to men in all aspects of society is an ignorant moron. However anyone who believes that there are no areas of society where women hold the advantage over men is also an ignorant moron. Custody battles for example often favour women. Many companies offer new mothers maternity leave, but fewer offer new fathers paternity leave. Cases where women are raped by men are treated as seriously as they should be, but cases where women rape men are often disregarded, sometimes even laughed at. Why should the fight to address the issues affecting men be labeled under feminism? This point also provides a perfect segue into my final point.

It's not often you hear feminists complain about how unfair the custody battles are in courts. You won't hear feminists complain about a lack of paternity leave for new fathers. You won't hear them complaining about how the rape of men isn't treated as seriously as the rape of women is. Why should they? It's not their fight. Feminism despite what feminists may claim, isn't interested in the societal problems that men face. Emma Watson said in her speech that feminism is men's fight too, but she was wrong. It's something we can support, but certainly not our fight.

I am not a feminist. I am an egalitarian. I believe that all people should be equal. That is my fight. If feminism were to adapt to take care of the issues listed above, maybe one day I could count myself as a feminist, but not yet.

Steven

Thoughts on Liberals

I am a socialist. I'm proud to say that, despite the best attempts of many on the right to turn "socialist" into a dirty word. I wasn't always a socialist though. When I first got seriously into politics, I was a supporter of the Conservative Party. Needless to say my support for them didn't last long. I took a step to the left and began supporting the Liberal Democrats. Then I saw how Nick Clegg became a puppet of the Conservative Party I stepped away from. So I took another step left and began supporting the Labour Party. Under the uninspiring leadership of Ed Miliband and before him Gordon Brown, I decided enough was enough. I stopped taking small steps, and took a big step left. I am now a socialist and supporter of the Respect Party. That's my political background. I however want to talk about liberals and how they irritate a socialist like me.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, right-wing politics is on the rise. In the US, they have the Tea Party which is comprised of the hardcore right-wingers of the Republican Party. In the UK, we have UKIP, a formally single-issue party who have evolved into a kind of BNP-Lite (The BNP is Britain's fascist party). So how have the Democrats in America and Labour in Britain reacted to these new players? They have shuffled slowly to the right in an attempt to appease the right-wing supporters of these new parties. You'll see them talk about how immigration is a huge problem and how austerity is needed to get the economy back on track. Even more laughable is how Democrats in America refused to even mention the President's name because he's unpopular among those on the right. Liberals need to grow some balls, get some principles and realise that people on the right aren't going to like them, but people on the left (who are being ignored by the parties meant to be representing them) might just like them.

Liberals need to own their successes. Look back through time and see how much better the world has become. Slavery in America is gone (Yes, Republicans got rid of it, but this was a time when Republicans were Liberal). Segregation is also gone also because of liberals. In Britain, we have free healthcare because of liberal (and socialist) ideals. What did conservatives do when presented with these changes? They opposed them! Liberals are on the right side of history and they heeded the previous piece of advice, think how much more could get done! What kind of people support gay marriage? What kind of people support healthcare for everyone? What kind of people support equal treatment for all people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation? The answer to all of these is Liberals! If you are a Liberal (or better yet a socialist) be proud of that!

So I am full of praise for liberals, but I'm a socialist. Well in my opinion Liberals don't go far enough! Socialism isn't about the abolition of private property or imposing a classless society. It's about making sure everyone can have a good life regardless of how rich or poor they are. It's about making sure that the government looks after each and every one of its citizens. It's about realising that we're all on this world together so why not help each other out? Why not realise that we are all humans and that while we may look different, speak different languages, pray to different gods (or indeed no gods at all) we are all part of this world. It's a pipe dream, but it's a dream I'm rather fond of.

I am a socialist. I am proud of this. If you are a liberal, be proud of yourself!  If you are a socialist, be proud of yourself! If you aren't, well nobody's perfect, but I'm sure we can find something that unites us.

Steven

Thoughts on Prisoners, Torture and Hypocrisy

This is another post I knew would be inevitable. Ever since the story broke I wondered how I would write about the CIA's torture program. How does anyone write about such things? I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for people like Shaker Aamer or what it was like for Moazzam Begg. All I can do is look at the information I have and somehow try and comprehend. I think this article will be a massive failure in that respect. Still, the bigger failure would be to say nothing so I'm going to share my thoughts here.

Shaker Aamer is a Saudi man who was a British resident. He has spent the last twelve years and ten months of his life however locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Normally when someone is arrested, they are charged with a crime, taken to court and judged by a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty, then they are sent to prison. Shaker Aamer's case is not a normal case however. He wasn't found guilty by a jury of his peers because he didn't receive a trial. He didn't receive a trial because he hasn't been charged with a crime. Even after almost thirteen years incarceration, he still hasn't been charged with a crime. He was simply taken and given to the CIA. The CIA then tortured him and are still torturing him. As if this whole situation wasn't ludicrous enough, he has been cleared for release by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Yet he's still inside because they won't let him join his family in the UK. These are the facts. Some people may point out that he confessed to participating in terrorist activity, which is true. Yet this was a confession obtained through torture. While I can't imagine what he went through, I can say for certain that if you torture me enough, I'll confess to killing JFK, but that doesn't mean I did.

I said Shaker Aamer was tortured. It's likely he is one of thousands of people who have been tortured. The CIA has plenty of methods of what they call "enhanced interrogation". These are the ones that we  now know about.

• Force Feeding (Both orally and anally)
• Excessively forceful rectal exams
• Threats to rape and murder the families of prisoners
• Inflicted hypothermia
• Prisoners forced to stand on broken/amputated legs/feet
• Prisoners told they would be killed
• Threatening with a gun and power drill
• Russian roulette
• Mock executions
• Waterboarding
• Sleep deprivation
• Buckets to use instead of toilets
• Sensory deprivation
• Keeping prisoners in coffins
• Keeping prisoners in boxes measuring 21in x 30in x 30in
• Forcing prisoners to stay in stress positions
• Ice water baths

If it isn't already clear, what I'm saying is "enhanced interrogation" is a bullshit term. It's torture.

Shaker Aamer is a British resident kept in an American prison, without being charged with a crime, despite two Presidents saying he can go. Imagine for a amount that Shaker Aamer was an American resident, with an American family. Imagine he was kept in a British prison without being charged and was tortured in there. How long do you think it would take the United States to send in the Navy SEALs? There's not much else to say. One thing does need saying though. Americans love to say that America is the greatest country in the world. These people are far too arrogant and far too ignorant.

Steven

Thoughts on Music

Well I'm back after a weekend of drinking and smoking with a very good friend of mine and I'm ready to write again. Today my thoughts on music specifically. One question I hate being asked is what kind of music I like. The only answer I find to be fitting is "Good music". Of course there are some genres I prefer to others, but I will listen to any music that is good (and some bad as well, I have my vices). My favourite genre currently is metal. I love a loud song that gets me hyped up with amazing guitar riffs, booming drums and lyrics that tell a short, but brilliant story. My brother and the aforementioned good friend of mine both prefer rap music (although they would have a few disagreements as to what constitutes rap). This made me think about the two genres and how much they have in common.

What do you think of, when you think of the typical fan of rap music? Many people would think of a 15 year old wannabe gangster with his jeans around his knees and a hoodie four sizes too big. What about the typical fan of metal? Many people would think of a man with long hair, satanic beliefs and a casual attitude towards violence. I know most people see beyond these stereotypes, but too many people don't. The fans of both genres have been negatively stereotyped beyond belief. Granted there will be some fans who do conform to the stereotype, but many do not. I am not a long-haired, violent satanist (despite what some people would have you believe). Neither my brother nor my friend want to join the crips or the bloods.

It's not just the fans that are stereotyped, but the music too. Rap music is thought to be solely about making money, having sex and doing drugs. Metal on the other hand is thought to be simply noise with an angry man screaming unintelligible nonsense over the top. People who think like this have never heard rappers like Immortal Technique or Lowkey. Hell, you don't even need to look underground! When at his best, Eminem's music can be inspiring, touching or both. 2Pac, Notorious B.I.G. Nas, Public Enemy and N.W.A. all are examples of rappers or rap groups with meaning behind their songs. Thos who think metal is merely noise have never heard Metallica, Megadeth, Black Sabbath Iron Maiden and many others who provide substance in their songs. Both genres have these negative stereotypes and I believe that has something to do with my next point.

Both rap and metal are often used to express dissatisfaction. N.W.A. didn't write "Fuck Tha Police" because they thought it would get them a lot of street-cred. They wrote it because they wanted to send a message to the LAPD specifically and American police in general. Public Enemy did not write "Fight the Power" because they thought it was catchy. They wrote it because they wanted people to stand up to those in power and remind them why they have the power in the first place. On the metal side, Metallica didn't write Master of Puppets because they enjoyed a marionette show. They wrote it to send a message about just how awful drug addiction is. Megadeth didn't write "Holy Wars... The Punishment Due" because they had the guitar riff down and needed some random lyrics. They were criticising the conflict going on in Northern Ireland specifically and any conflict motivated by religion in general. There are messages behind many of these songs that people should listen to.

Why not listen to some rap or metal some time. You might just like it. Let's also be honest: Music is declining in quality (Popular music at least). Heading back to the 80s and 90s will get you some great music, especially rap and metal.

Steven

Thoughts on Christianity

It was inevitable I suppose. In my first post, I stated that I was an anti-theist so eventually I would have to write an article about the dominant religion is all countries in which I myself have lived. That religion is Christianity. I used to be quite fiery in my attacks towards this faith, but this is an attempt at a calm, rational critique of the world's largest religion. If you are Christian yourself and feel offended by some of these things, I apologise. So here goes.

Do you know what the best selling book of all time is? If you think it's the Bible, you're absolutely right. The book the Christian's call "The Good Book" is found almost everywhere. I myself have two of them (both of which where given to me). Is it really a good book though? Well I've tried reading it and I'll admit snakes are inherently evil, but during the absurdly long sequence of begatting I lost interest. It's not exactly a great read. So I've had to settle for second hand accounts of the biblical stories. There's stories about how Moses ordered his men to kill all the men who didn't believe in God and keep the virgins as their sex slaves. Others include Abraham being perfectly fine with killing his son to show his devotion to God. I know these books are part of the Old Testament and Christians say I should look towards the New Testament, but the Ten Commandments are a part of the old Testament. The infamous book of Leviticus which many Christians use to justify homophobia is also in there. There's simply no way that the Bible can be described as "good".

Christians worship the God of the Bible. They say he is a loving, merciful and benevolent god. This is is quite frankly an absurd claim. Let's start with the Old Testament again. This God flooded the Earth because apparently people were wicked. He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they ate an apple. He basically turned Lot's life to shit to win a bet with the Devil. In total he kills more the two million people in the Bible (and that's only counting those times when an exact figure was given). Richard Dawkins really hit the nail on the head when he said "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully.” There is however one part I disagree with Richard Dawkins on. I can think of a character in fiction more unpleasant than the God of the Old Testament. That would be the God of the New Testament. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild introduced a concept into Christianity that outweighs all the genocide committed by the Old Testament God. Jesus introduces the concept of hell. In other words, infinite punishment for a finite crime. Jesus would send me to hell because I don't believe in God. He would send Mahatma Gandhi to hell for believing in the wrong gods. It's horrific. 

I'll end on this note. I know that few Christians take the Bible literally. I am not saying that belief makes someone a bad person. I have a massive amount of respect for Pope Francis because of his progressive attitude to people like me. I just want people to realise that they should have another look at their beliefs and see if they can really follow such a book and worship such a God.

Thoughts on Some Things That Shouldn't Be Things

One of my favourite TV Shows is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I think Mr. Stewart is a comedic genius and the correspondents on The Daily Show are also funny in their own rights. So when I heard that John Oliver, one of those correspondents was getting his own show on HBO, I was thrilled. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver didn't disappoint either as it is not only very funny, but also calls attention to serious issues. One web exclusive segment that John Oliver does is called "How Is This Still A Thing?". Starting with Dressing up as other races and going onto Ayn Rand and Columbus Day, Last Week Tonight asked how are they still things? Well as my own tribute to the hilarious John Oliver I will submit three things for his consideration.

I don't know how many of you like American Football. It's a sport I used to believe was a sport for wusses who need to wear body armour. The key word being used to. I played it a little myself and I don't think I've ever been more wrong about anything in my life, but I digress. In America's National Football League (NFL) there is a team called the Washington Redskins. How is it possible that in the 21st century that one of America's most popular sports teams has the name "Redskins". What's even more amazing is how defenders of this name don't see how it's offensive, and some even say it actually honours the Native Americans. Team owner Daniel Synder says that the team has always been the Redskins and has no intentions of changing the name because it represents more than the team, but the legacy of that team. I wonder if he would feel comfortable going up to a Native American and saying "Good morning Redskin". This is enough to make me ask, The Washington Redskins: How are they still a thing?

I am a fan of The Big Bang Theory and one of my favourite quotes from the show is Sheldon's description of astrology. "The mass cultural delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality." There are far too many people in the world who believe in astrology and other pseudosciences. In newspapers here in Switzerland, there are pages dedicated to astrology so the gullible masses can learn what fate has in store for them. I have just a few questions for astrologists. Firstly do I have the same destiny as everyone who was born around the same time as me? Do I have the same kind of personality? Is the astrological calendar reversed for the southern hemisphere? What evidence do you have that any of this is anything more that bullshit? In short I suppose you could say I'm asking, Astrology (and other pseudosciences): How is this (they) still a thing?

Cast your mind back to 20th January 2012. On that day Barack Obama was inaugurated for his second term as the U.S. President. It was a big day, there was a massive crowd, he gave a speech and Beyoncé performed too! Or did she? No she didn't. She lip-synced. Imagine you went to a football match and instead of seeing the players play, they showed you a video of the teams playing a match that took place earlier. Or you go to the Lourve and instead of showing you the Mona Lisa, they show you a photograph of the Mona Lisa. People would be outraged! Yet somehow it seems to be fine for a professional singer to stand in front of a crowd and pretend to sing. Maybe I'm strange for thinking this, but I'm forced to ask, Professional singers lip-syncing: How is this still a thing?

Let me clarify one thing. I am not trying to be John Oliver. If I was a tenth as funny as he is, I'd be a very happy man. I just think these are questions that must be asked and he is an inspiration to me. As always, I thank you all for reading!

Thoughts on... Certain Restrictions

Ok today I promise an article with some humour. If you are uncomfortable reading about, shall we say, not safe for work material, stop reading now. The British government has recently passed a bill that places numerous restrictions on British porn. Apparently we need to draw the line somewhere because we need "a set of moral judgements" to regulate pornography. This sounds so stereotypically British that you'd be forgiven for thinking I'm making this up. Well I'm not. No really, I'm not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

So what exactly has been banned? Here is the list.

• Spanking
• Caning
• Aggressive Whipping (As opposed to the non-aggressive whipping).
• Penetration by any object "associated with violence" (That seems a little vague)
• Physical or Verbal abuse regardless if consensual (She hasn't been a bad girl!)
• Urolagnia (A fancy word for pissing on people)
• Role playing as non-adults
• Physical restraint
• Humiliation
• Female ejaculation (If David Cameron can't make his woman do it, no one can!)
• Strangulation
• Facesitting
• Fisting

I must admit, I'm a little unsure what to make of all this. It seems women have been unfairly targeted by this list and dominatrixes should find a new job. Honestly though, it's just hard for me not to take the piss (pun intended). The only thought going through my mind right now is if the scaling back of porn becomes a trend, we'll have sex education classes where Mr. Cholmondey-Warner gives lessons like this http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1554fc5264/the-conjugal-rights-guide.

Why bring morality into porn? It's not meant to be moral, it's watching people go at it like rabbits on a honeymoon and if it's all consensual, what is so immoral about it. Perhaps some posh tory boys see these kinds of things and have trouble maintaining their not only stiff upper lips. 

This was a lot of fun. I promise tomorrow I'll be less vulgar.

Steven

Thoughts on Causes

I'm quite politically aware and you haven't picked up on that, you're not paying attention. As such I support various causes, some of which I'll talk about today. I must admit to feeling a little out of my depth right now. I recently had a friend read my posts and in her feedback she aptly demonstrated (perhaps without meaning to) that there are people who can unconsciously write circles around me. It's one thing knowing such a fact, but another one entirely to witness it.

Getting back to causes I support the first I want to talk about is Palestine. I know I should try to be more upbeat after yesterday's post, but this is a cause that's too important for me to leave out. It's a bit shameful for me considering the role Britain played in creating the State of Israel which is currently occupying what is Palestine and always has been Palestine. The British controlled the land for a while and when tensions rose between the natives Arab population and the migrant Jewish population, Britain couldn't have left quicker. I support a two-state solution along the 1967 borders with a Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Sadly I do not see such a solution happening anytime soon with fanatics like Hamas and Benjamin Netanyahu calling the shots on both sides. American intervention won't help because Israel is more likely to condemn Israel before America does. Still, Free Palestine!

The second cause I wish to mention is British republicanism. Now in America a republican is a member of the "centre-right" political party who's members are extremely diverse, ranging from the boneheads to the brain-dead to the bat-shit. I am not a republican in the American sense of the word. In Britain a republican is someone who wants to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. My support for republicanism started with a simple premise. Monarchs rule by divine right, I am an atheist, I don't believe in anything divine. Therefore I do not believe in a monarch's right to rule. At first this was all there was to my republicanism and then I decided to read more about the whole cause. The idea that someone is above me because they happened to be born into a certain family is just plain wrong in this day and age. The Queen seems like a nice enough lady and I'm sure if she were to run in an election, she'd get many votes. The problem is she didn't get any votes. It's undemocratic and out of place in the 21st century.

The last cause is one that will lighten the mood. That's what it does. I support the legalisation of marijuana. It has proven health benefits, it makes social interactions much easier for introverted people like myself and the worst thing it'll do is make you tired. Not to mention simply how many people are in prison over something that at the end of the day is only illegal because the paper industry didn't want to lose money. It's also not often one gets to say "North Korea has got this one right", but I'll say it now. North Korea has got this one right. Legalise it!

Well that'll do for now, as always a massive thank you for reading and if you want me to write about a specific topic, please tell me. I'm on Facebook (Steven Rowing) and twitter (@steviestevesgr)

Steven

Thoughts on Injustice

A friend of mine told me I have a voice now and that I should use it. He said I should write about the killing of black men in America by the police. I am a white British twenty year old man living in Switzerland, so my opinion on these issues is that of an outsider. However it just wouldn't be right if I didn't use this voice I now have to talk about something I have been sickened by. Three incidents in particular have caught my attention.

The first and most obvious is the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. Lots of people have already voiced their opinions on this matter, it's been all over the news and the Ferguson protesters have been included on the shortlist for Time Magazine's Person of the Year. This incident really called attention to the institutional racism of the police in America. This was highlighted by a video of a policeman facing a crowd of protesters saying "Bring it, all you fucking animals." Matters were then made even worse when a grand jury decided not to indict Darren Wilson. Fuel is added to this fire when lawyers state they've never seen a prosecutor work so hard to exonerate a killer. Granted, the witness testimony is conflicting and there are many facts about the case that are still unclear. If only there was some kind of legal proceeding in which all the facts were gathered, cases were made on both sides and a verdict was reached (maybe call it a trial?). Some people like to point out that this is just one incident. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York after a police officer named Daniel Pantaleo put him in a chokehold for nineteen seconds. Once again a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer. What makes this case different to the Michael Brown shooting is that there are no conflicting eyewitness accounts. In fact there is a video of the incident. In the video Eric Garner can be heard saying "I can't breathe" eleven times. Even the coroner who examined Eric Garner's body ruled his death a homicide. It's simply insane just how no charges were brought against this officer. Some people point out that Eric Garner is doing something illegal. The heinous act of selling loose cigarettes being the illegal act. These same people will often neglect to mention that putting people in chokeholds is also illegal, even for police officers. I'll also point out that the man who filmed the incident was indicted by a grand jury on gun crimes, so it turns out grand juries do indict people from time to time.

The third incident that caught my attention was the shooting of Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio. This incident sickens me the most for a simple reason. Eric Garner was 43 years old when he was killed. Michael Brown was 18 years old when he was shot. Tamir Rice was only 12 years old. He was playing with an airsoft gun when he was shot dead by Officer Timothy Loehmann. I say shot dead, when I should say that Tamir Rice was shot and left to die. I also feel compelled to point out that Officer Loehmann was previously a policeman in Independence, Ohio where he was deemed to be an emotionally unstable recruit and unfit for duty. Also it's worth noting that the person who called the police about Tamir Rice stated twice that the gun was probably fake.

Allow me to cast your minds back two years to the killing of Trayvon Martin. I never thought I'd say this, but at least George Zimmerman was put on trial. It looks like America is taking giant steps backwards. These three incidents all give the impression that the police in America value the lives of black Americans less than those of white Americans, because when was the last time anyone heard of a white American who was killed under any of these circumstances? The worst part is as a British guy in Switzerland, I know that those three cases are only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many more cases I don't know about and that don't get the media attention. This sickens me, so I can't even begin to imagine how black Americans must feel living this.

Steven

Thoughts to Distract

Well I'm a little pissed off right now. Chelsea just lost a match they really should've won and we've thrown away our unbeaten record this season. Credit to Newcastle, they defended brilliantly, but that does nothing to cheer me up. So I try to think thoughts that make me laugh. One thing that I love is irony and thinking of things that are ironic make me laugh and forget about things getting me down.

Nigel Farage springs to mind right now. I could take the piss out of him all day, but the reason he springs to mind right now is that he is the ironic leader of the anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Firstly with a name like Farage, it's clear his family did not come from England, but more likely from across the English channel. That however is only the tip of the iceberg. His wife is a German immigrant, but even that isn't really what springs to mind right now. What does spring to mind is an interview he gave a few months back where he said he felt uncomfortable hearing people speak Romanian on public trains. I myself see no reason why Romanian would make a person uncomfortable, unless said person is a racist bigot, but Farage insists he is not racist. The irony is his own children do not speak English as a first language. Somehow hearing German does not make him uncomfortable, but Romanian does. He says that it's completely different and that we know exactly how it's different. When asked to explain the difference, he employs the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" technique. It's fun take the piss out of the political right isn't it?

Now I'm thinking of Britain First. If any of you are British and have a Facebook account, you've likely heard of this group. If not, they're a far-right, anti-immigration group who exploit the suffering of abused animals to trick people into donating to their hate group. They love expressing their support for military veterans, especially those who fought in World War II. They seem to be forgetting that those who fought in World War II were fighting against the far-right regimes of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. They too deny being racist, yet a look at the pictures they post stating that Muslims are the problem and the enthusiastic support these posts receive gives a different impression. I could go on about Britain First, but why hammer in a nail that's already in. I recommend to those who want to learn more about Britain First to check out this link: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.ch/2014/06/12-things-britain-first.html

Despite the ironies being mildly amusing, I really should turn to something I love about the British. That is how sarcastic we are. Whoever said that sarcasm is the lowest of wit, is a moron. A friend recently called my attention to something on Buzzfeed. The Daily Mail asked if there was anyone left in Britain who could make a sandwich after Tesco and M&S were forced to hire Hungarian sandwich makers. The British people came out in droves all showing that whenever we can be sarcastic, we will be. You can see the results of the aspiring sandwich makers here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/sandwichgate

Well I feel better after that so that'll do for now. As always, I thank you all for reading.

Steven

The First of My Thoughts

I do an awful lot of thinking. Probably too much, but that's the kind of person I am. My name is Steven, I'm a twenty year old Englishman living in Switzerland. I'm an aspiring author, a left-wing socialist and an anti-theistic atheist. I enjoy sports a lot. I'm a big fan of Chelsea FC when it comes to football and I also like FC Basel. When the sport is basketball, I'm a fan of the Boston Celtics (after my brother pressured me to pick a team) and I follow the NBA with a keen eye. I follow American football less attentively, probably because my team is the hopeless Jacksonville Jaguars. To be honest, there aren't many sports I don't like. Cricket, Baseball and Golf are the only three that spring to mind.

So why am I writing all this? Well the first reason is simply the title of this blog. I've got nothing better to do. The second reason is I like to think out loud. This seems to be a socially acceptable way of doing that. The third reason is as I stated earlier, I'm an aspiring author and this seems to be a good way to keep writing. So where do I start? I could start with the idiotic prick that is Nigel Farage and his fear of breastfeeding. He says it's embarrasing to others and can make them uncomfortable. Well Nigel, I don't know what all people think, but I think I can safely say that a significant number of British people are embarrased and made uncomfortable by you, so if you could hide away in a corner, that'd be great. Well that was fun and a little cathartic, what's next? Tony Blair says politicians are underpaid. Given the state of the country right now and especially the state of politics, I find this a very difficult opinion to agree with. It's also worth pointing out that I have no respect for Tony Blair as he is the Prime Minister that took Britain into Iraq and Afghanistan, following George W. Bush like a good little lapdog. I think I'll go for one more. #CameronMustGo has been trending for two weeks now. It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that a tory multi-millionaire, who was a member of as vile a group as the Bullingdon Club and who is currently squeezing the British working class for all they've got, should not be Prime Minister. Quite frankly I'm not surprised almost half of Scotland wanted independence from that wanker as he personifies everything Scotland hates about England.

Well this was fun, I think I'll do it again. I welcome your opinions on any and all of these matters, because thinking out loud to myself can get boring and I love a good debate/discussion. If there's an issue you'd like to hear my thoughts on, I'd be more than happy to give my opinion on it. Well, that's all I've got for now, thanks for reading this.

Steven