Should be a short one today. Should be.
Firstly. The inquiry into the CIA and their missing tapes. I'm sure we're all shocked that the most pathetic 'intelligence agency' in the world has destroyed evidence of their xenophobic employees beating holy hell out of someone because they 'might be a terrorist' because they have an Arabic last name, wear a turban, or don't believe in God the same way they do. Apparently, so the CIA claim, the tapes were destroyed to 'protect the identity of their agents'. I'm not sure I am quite willing to believe that, you know. I'd not be surprised if they were torturing people, and the tapes were swept under the rug, so to speak.
However, that does say something about the CIA. If they are torturing people, and they know their own government doesn't publically endorse the use of torture, and that no matter how hard you try the truth is going to come out, one way or another, then they'd have the sense to not record it. They may well be bound by law to record interogations. Yet, when they violate human rights, and the law, what good is going to come, for them, from recording them doing so?
The main point of this rant is, albeit not put across yet, the CIA are not particularly intelligent, and to believe they do not torture people is more stubborn, idiotic and pointless than The Sun 'news' paper. I hope someone does launch a full investigation into it, and some balding jackass gets fired and thrown in prison.
The only other thing that struck my interest when I was meandering through todays slow news was a story on the BBC website, and it's about radio. "Digital radio means more stations have the ability to broadcast extra information alongside the audio. But some experts are looking at providing some pretty controversial extra radio content - pictures."
Hold on a minute. Broadcasting images and the god-awful noise that most stations play makes them fucking television stations.Television making the radio a visual experiance makes it television, admitedly shit television, but television all the same. I should qualify that. Shittier television than the current channels.
Whoever is pushing this idea needs to be kicked off the development team, because they're just trying to take credit for what's already been done, broadcasting pictures and noise together. Any radio presenters that think it's a good idea are saying to the world "Hi! I was too stupid or ugly to get a TV show and took a fallback job on the radio hoping someone'd hear me and give me a chatshow!" and people will lose even more respect for you. What little they had in the first place.
Leave radio alone, it's not television, it's radio. Noise and no pictures, we don't need pictures. We already have the option of watching Graham Norton be a completely unfunny douchebag, or Jonathon Ross being a pathetic host, or even a collection of racist stupids on Big Brother, who mostly talk crap, with stupids too mentally devoid for convorsation watching.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Assorted ramblings
Let's start with the most common topic, shall we. The good old Iraq war. Well, okay, that's not entirely true. It's the BBC and its obsession with the war. An Irish man was stabbed, in a botched phone robbery, which makes less sense than the war, and the BBC related it, apparently with no hesitation, to the war. He wasn't stabbed because he had done a tour of Iraq, he wasn't stabbed by someone who opposes the war (If he had been, then the stabber would have been more moronic than George Bush). He was stabbed beause he didn't want to give his phone to some dickless wonder who cannot, apparently, get a job and buy their own stuff. The point of this short-ish rant is, the BBC seems to relate everything violent to the war, for no apparent reason. It's not like we've forgotten that there's a war going on, someone mentions it every thirty fucking seconds.
Another stabbing! Some stupid bastard stabbed a Polish man in Wales. I do love the uninformed retards of the world. This Polish guy is said to have 'worked assiduously and without causing any trouble for some two years.' which to me means 'he worked, drank, and did what he had to do to make a living'. Which is acceptable, surely. Well, unless you're a scum munching retard that hates immigrants because 'they took your job' when in actual fact, they took the job you were too fucking stupid to get yourself, because all you know how to do is drink, fuck, and scrounge money off the government to buy more drink, dope, and drunkenly fuck some random girl and provide the world with another sack of worthless crap.
Given the choice of the dirty, low down stupids of the UK, or the Polish? I'll take the Polish, they work, drink, and have a laugh. Strangely, they do it without trying to stab someone for looking at their woman wrong. Just because they're better at manipulating the English language than the dumbfucks that can't even dress themselves in anything but velcro shoes and zippered tracksuits, doesn't mean they need to be thrown out.
Next up. Fat people dying when giving birth. No bloody prizes for guessing why :/ So. As we know, fat can, and does, gather in the arteries. There is no dispute about that. Now. What does giving birth do to women? Let's see, from what I can tell (I'm no doctor, nor am I a father, stepfather, or even in a relationship) it puts a lot of strain on the womans body, as a whole. Specifically the heart. I assume you've seen a birth, and the vast majority of women scream like all holy hell, because (And get this) they're straining! What happens when you're straining and using muscles? Your heart has a ahrder time working! So, what does that mean? It means that fatties (Who, frankly, probably didn't know they were pregnant until it hurt to pee one day) are going to fuck their hearts up a whole lot faster than women who're in good shape. Now, my real beef with this research. This doctor has spent however long looking at this data, and most likely, ungodly amounts of money to come to this stunningly expected conclusion. What could be better done with this money? Well, let's see, all these people researching into cancer, alzheimers and other such so far uncurable diseases and whatnot, are losing money so some fuckwit can tell us what anyone with even the slightest inclination to breath could tell us. Being fat and pregnant is dangerous for your heart. I hate pointless research.
Last but not least, the video games rant.
I've been a gamer for over ten years now. Back in the early days, my gaming time was limited to an hour a day, infact, all my screen time was limited to an hour. However, game types were rarely limited in terms of age limits and such. However, for quite some years (Until it became 'uncool') I played mostly friendly games (Spyro The Dragon, for example) that, as one might expect of a young lad, progressed to more violent, and supposedly 'dangerous' games. I blame myself, now, for playing those games, because even though my parents did notice the 15/18 ratings on the box, I lied to the point where I would end up getting the game (I was probably about 13/14 when I first encountered GTA, and not much older when I came into contact with Metal Gear).
I don't think the problem lies with the retailers, as they're not to know if a parent is buying a game for their child, and a lot of people get angry when you question the intention of the purchase (I used to work with age restricted products) and often start creating a scene so you'll sell them the item to move them on and not give a bad impression to other customers. The problem, in my opinion lies with the parents and their lack of understanding. However, since a lot of parents don't have the time, or interest, to learn about these things, I think this generation is set for a pretty tough ride, especially as gaming is taking off in the mainstream so well at the moment. I don't believe, no matter how many fliers, information sites, infomercials etc, that these products will remain out of the hands of children until my generation come to be parents, as we will have been raised on games, and will have a much better understanding of game ratings and their meanings.
In other words. Fuck your research into games and their effects on children, because children are forever going to get these games, until we (The 'children') are the next generation of parents, who understand all the stupid acronyms, ratings systems, and little snippits on the back of games. Provided we're not braindead thickos, or irresponsible parents, we'll be better equipped to limit the games reaching our children.
Another stabbing! Some stupid bastard stabbed a Polish man in Wales. I do love the uninformed retards of the world. This Polish guy is said to have 'worked assiduously and without causing any trouble for some two years.' which to me means 'he worked, drank, and did what he had to do to make a living'. Which is acceptable, surely. Well, unless you're a scum munching retard that hates immigrants because 'they took your job' when in actual fact, they took the job you were too fucking stupid to get yourself, because all you know how to do is drink, fuck, and scrounge money off the government to buy more drink, dope, and drunkenly fuck some random girl and provide the world with another sack of worthless crap.
Given the choice of the dirty, low down stupids of the UK, or the Polish? I'll take the Polish, they work, drink, and have a laugh. Strangely, they do it without trying to stab someone for looking at their woman wrong. Just because they're better at manipulating the English language than the dumbfucks that can't even dress themselves in anything but velcro shoes and zippered tracksuits, doesn't mean they need to be thrown out.
Next up. Fat people dying when giving birth. No bloody prizes for guessing why :/ So. As we know, fat can, and does, gather in the arteries. There is no dispute about that. Now. What does giving birth do to women? Let's see, from what I can tell (I'm no doctor, nor am I a father, stepfather, or even in a relationship) it puts a lot of strain on the womans body, as a whole. Specifically the heart. I assume you've seen a birth, and the vast majority of women scream like all holy hell, because (And get this) they're straining! What happens when you're straining and using muscles? Your heart has a ahrder time working! So, what does that mean? It means that fatties (Who, frankly, probably didn't know they were pregnant until it hurt to pee one day) are going to fuck their hearts up a whole lot faster than women who're in good shape. Now, my real beef with this research. This doctor has spent however long looking at this data, and most likely, ungodly amounts of money to come to this stunningly expected conclusion. What could be better done with this money? Well, let's see, all these people researching into cancer, alzheimers and other such so far uncurable diseases and whatnot, are losing money so some fuckwit can tell us what anyone with even the slightest inclination to breath could tell us. Being fat and pregnant is dangerous for your heart. I hate pointless research.
Last but not least, the video games rant.
I've been a gamer for over ten years now. Back in the early days, my gaming time was limited to an hour a day, infact, all my screen time was limited to an hour. However, game types were rarely limited in terms of age limits and such. However, for quite some years (Until it became 'uncool') I played mostly friendly games (Spyro The Dragon, for example) that, as one might expect of a young lad, progressed to more violent, and supposedly 'dangerous' games. I blame myself, now, for playing those games, because even though my parents did notice the 15/18 ratings on the box, I lied to the point where I would end up getting the game (I was probably about 13/14 when I first encountered GTA, and not much older when I came into contact with Metal Gear).
I don't think the problem lies with the retailers, as they're not to know if a parent is buying a game for their child, and a lot of people get angry when you question the intention of the purchase (I used to work with age restricted products) and often start creating a scene so you'll sell them the item to move them on and not give a bad impression to other customers. The problem, in my opinion lies with the parents and their lack of understanding. However, since a lot of parents don't have the time, or interest, to learn about these things, I think this generation is set for a pretty tough ride, especially as gaming is taking off in the mainstream so well at the moment. I don't believe, no matter how many fliers, information sites, infomercials etc, that these products will remain out of the hands of children until my generation come to be parents, as we will have been raised on games, and will have a much better understanding of game ratings and their meanings.
In other words. Fuck your research into games and their effects on children, because children are forever going to get these games, until we (The 'children') are the next generation of parents, who understand all the stupid acronyms, ratings systems, and little snippits on the back of games. Provided we're not braindead thickos, or irresponsible parents, we'll be better equipped to limit the games reaching our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
