The Final Mac'n'Cheese.

Because I'm going on this diet, I'm having a few foods over the next few days that I won't be able to have anymore!

The one thing I was certain I had to have was macaroni cheese. It's one of my favourite dishes and I'll miss it a lot. I want to share my recipe so other people can enjoy it.

Disclaimer: This is NOT good for you- it is serious comfort food. It is massively heavy, cheesy and indulgent. Great for a treat, or if you really want to impress.

Scott's Final Macaroni Cheese.

Ingredients:-

2oz extra mature cheddar

2oz Red Leicester 

2oz Parmigiano Regganio (Parmesan)

250ml Double cream

250ml milk

2oz butter

1oz plain flour

1tsp ground black pepper

1tsp sea salt.

250g macaroni

Approx 3tbsp breadcrumbs

150g smoked bacon lardons- or slice some of your own to 1cm width

Directions:-

Melt butter in saucepan. Using a whisk, gradually add the flour to make a roux. Whisk constantly. It should thicken, bubble and pale, but not become solid. If it does, you've added too much flour.

Gradually whisk in the cream and milk. Add salt and pepper and whisk constantly until the mixture thickens and bubbles. Add the cheese, a little bit at a time, and whisk in until completely melted. Set this to one side.

Fry bacon pieces in a pan with a little butter or oil until well crisped. Set aside on kitchen roll to soak excess grease.

Cook your macaroni as per packaging instructions. Combine with your cheesy sauce, and stir in bacon lardons. Spoon into a small lasagne dish or pie dish, and top with breadcumbs and a little extra cheddar if desired.

Bake at 200°C for 30 mins, or until the topping is golden and bubbling. Set aside for ten mins before serving!

Enjoy!

Christmas by Numbers

Gifts

Cards received: 4

Cards recycled: 4

Presents received: 5

Presents given: 3

Presents deferred until January sales: 6

Presents disliked and reactions concealed: 0

Food

Courses eaten: 2

Chipolatas eaten: 7

Alcoholic Beverages Consumed: 4

Mince pies scoffed: 0

Cakes ingested: 3

Chocolates eaten: toofuckinmany.

Foods eaten that I won't be able to have when I start Paleo: 8

Interaction and People

"Merry Christmas!" Heard: innumerable.

People hugged: 1

Hands shaken: 6

Christmas Hats seen: 2

Festive jumpers spotted: 1

Crackers Pulled: 1

Awful jokes:

"Humbug" uttered by myself: 1

Media

Films watched: 1

TV watched (hrs): 7

Religion mentioned: 1

Jesus seen: Nope.

Santa mentioned: 3

Santa Seen: once.

Snowfall: 0cm

Snow Mentioned: 2

Appropriate this.

Something common to Tumblr (that hovel of online humanity) reared its ugly head recently. I read an article a few weeks back about how Hip-Hop is a music of black origin (true) and that it's wrong for white people to perform in this genre.

This is another example of what is referred to as supposed "cultural appropriation". Meaning you are taking a part of a culture that isn't yours and using it to entertain or as decoration etc. It's the same reason that people frown upon Native American head-dresses at Halloween, or white people getting certain tribal tattoos, or displaying a Zulu spear, or dream catcher in your house.

Now that I've explained it; allow me to to illustrate why I think the whole concept is complete bullshit:

Culture is what makes small groups of people different. By learning about it, we learn about the world. For that reason, it is something to be respected, but it's also something to be shared.

 There are plenty reasons why people shouldn't wear a Native American war bonnet- in a way it's like someone dressed in full military gear wearing a Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honour- when they have never been in the armed forces. However, stating that you shouldn't wear it because you're white is complete nonsense. Used in a costume at Halloween, either is completely harmless- the person in costume is not trying to pass themselves off as what they're dressed as (I did not get people to refer to me as Solid Snake this year) and are not stating they are deserving of any honours or possessing of any skills their attire would suggest (I am in no way stealthy, and there's nothing wrong with my eye.)

Furthermore I imagine the vast majority of  Native American people don't really care if you have a dream catcher or tribal pipe in your house, so the idea of some white person on their high horse being offended FOR them just makes me laugh. People get replicas of these traditional items (because usually they aren't genuine) because they are somewhat interested in the culture. They can become a talking point, or simply be to study out of self interest. This is harmless.

Tradition is a vacuous concept. Because something is traditional does not make it acceptable or correct. Ancient Mayan cultures offered up human sacrifices to their gods at certain times of the year. It was tradition. Does that make it okay? This complacent "we've always done it that way" thinking is a load of rubbish. Like human beings and other life on Earth, culture evolves. It moves in the wake of the moral zeitgeist, and old useless traditions are thrown away- with new ones accepted in their place.

The idea of an object being sacred is also complete rubbish. An item is only valuable if people place value upon it. Therefore, how can a decorative African mask in a british living room be sacred? Furthermore, that something is sacred usually means that supernatural powers and superstition is ascribed to it- such as the mask granting the wearer the ability to travel to "the spirit world" or talk to a god. These are thoughts which no rational person would entertain for a moment without evidence. Such historical superstitions have long been debunked- and history is now the object's only value- because such relics come from a time when certain things could not be explained. Now, they can. Older cultures as a whole have only historical value in a modern world, and I firmly believe modern religions will be the same. I also am firmly of the opinion that if something is irrational, and continues to be, despite amassed evidence to the contrary; it does not deserve respect. In fact it should be disdained and ridiculed.

"The religion of one age, is the literary entertainment of the next."

However, as for music, with which I opened this post, I have to say only this- music has no colour or ethnicity. Music, like laughter, is a universal language. The fact that Requiem Mass has Christian religious themes sung in Latin, does not make it any less a beautiful piece of music- much as Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is no less valuable or appealing being based on old Norse mythology. If you deny yourself music because it isn't part of the culture you were born in, you're an idiot. If that was the case, only people in the Mississippi delta would listen to Blues, and the rest of the world would have no Rock, no Metal, no modern Pop, no RnB and no Jazz. Music is to be shared and explored- in fact- today I urge you to go and find a piece of music on an instrument you've never heard of. Try the Guzheng, or the Harp-Guitar, or the Djembe, or the Hurdy-Gurdy. Go and do it right now, and you'll be all the better for it! 

As for my own culture- I am a Scottish person. I don't care who wears tartan, I don't care who wears a kilt. If say, an American citizen wanted to relocate over here, wear a Stuart tartan kilt every day of their life, eat haggis, drink single malt, attend and dance at ceilidhs, and learn how to bagpipe- I would have no qualms whatsoever. The vast majority of Scots would welcome them heartily. 

How you kill a culture, is not by allowing people to take inspiration from, and imitate it. How you kill a culture is by fencing it off and watching it slowly become extinct.

What You Buy With Free Speech.

Yesterday, a young man in Sunderland was arrested, for making an insensitive,  and disgusting joke on Twitter, at the expense of those killed in Glasgow's George Square.

I won't mention his name, nor will I lend him a platform for his bile to be spread further, by copy-pasting his tweet. I do this out of respect for the victims of the incident- one of whom I knew and worked with. Jack was a kind, generous, talkative and genial soul.

In the wake of his arrest- many Twitter users (Twits?) are claiming injustice, and protesting it with the ever predictable cries of "it was only a joke" and "freedom of speech". 

Such nonsense makes me groan.

Yes, it is important to maintain freedom of speech- even if it is a view we disagree with, we must fight for people's right to say it. However, having freedom to say something, and exercising that right, doesn't  absolve a person of all responsibility and accountability for their words. Furthermore, when you sign up to a social media site, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions of use, including conduct.

The fact of the matter is, this individual grossly insulted not only the victims, their friends and family, but their whole nation. It caused a large amount of people considerable distress and upset. It violated Twitter's terms of use, and apart from anything else, it was also racist and thus in contravention of the law.

As for the comedy aspect- I agree that there should be no boundaries in what can, and cannot be joked about. Tragedy and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Invoking humour- especially around the darker events in our history and humanity- makes life more bearable. It is an important part of our culture, and it helps in how we deal with such events emotionally. However, comedy has a qualifier. If people don't find it funny, it's not a joke- despite what your intentions were. If you have to explain why it's funny, the joke has failed. If it's set out to hurt some people and make others laugh, I'm not sure that meets the criteria of a joke either- and it should be noted that this is profoundly different to being the butt of a joke. Jokes should not aim to have a selective audience- surely they should aim to entertain all? Humour is very individual, but comedians all have one goal; to entertain. This is why despite not appealing to everyone, the likes of Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais are an important facet of the genre. 

I recently wrote a post about offence, and I feel I need to make a differentiation between what I am saying here, and what I was saying there. When I go on the attack in my writings; I attack ideas, not people. Ideas do not have rights- people do. Sometimes, in support of my criticism of ideas, I may invoke an opinion or criticism of someone- but you will never find me sincerely wishing someone physical harm or relishing in suffering. It's also important when making criticisms, to restrict oneself to use of the facts, and refrain from use of ad hominem attacks, which undermine your point. 

So before you leap to the defence of someone exercising their "freedom of speech" or decide to do so yourself:

Think.

The Only Real Power of Prayer.

Everytime there is a tragedy, or someone is going through a loss, people often say they are praying for those involved. 

If we are to believe in the so called "power of prayer", Somehow, by clasping their hands and casting their eyes skyward, or speaking aloud to the air in front of them- another person's suffering will somehow be alleviated by God. However- in truth, prayer only helps one person.

The person doing the praying.

The reason for this, is that by indulging in such activities, or typing as much in a Facebook comment, it makes the praying person feel like they have actually done something- when in fact they've not done anything at all. It requires absolutely zero effort. At most, they have talked to themselves- and that's supposed to make people feel better? There is no evidence to suggest that prayer helps the sick either- see the results of "The Great Prayer Experiment", Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) 2006. The study actually seemed to demonstrate people who knew they were being prayed for, actually deteriorated in health. People who didn't know they were being prayed for (some were the targets of prayer and some were not) displayed no difference in results between them.

Apart from anything else, if God does exist, then it's been made quite apparent that he doesn't give a fiddlers fuck about what human beings pray for. If that was the case, any benevolent all-powerful overseer would surely ease the suffering of- for talking's sake- babies in Africa who are born with AIDS; which will surely kill them, if starvation and contaminated water doesn't first. But hey, maybe he is too busy helping well-off British and American Christians find their car keys or pass assessments; perhaps their prayers are worth extra. Or maybe it's all part of "Gods plan" that so many of the pious frequently carp about. Some plan. I want no part of it.

I haven't seen many faith healers going in  to clean up the Ebola outbreak either as an alternative to modern medical care. What does that tell you?

By all means pay your respects and condolences to the bereaved and the hurt, but invoking God in times of tragedy is at best hollow and at worst completely insensitive. If you want to do something to help someone; actually DO it.

Primal Urges.

I often make New Years resolutions. I very rarely stick to them. I want to get fitter. I'm hardly obese, but I could stand to be a bit happier in my own skin. 

This year however, will be different. Because starting on January first, I'm going Paleo.

"Dude, what in the name of the wee man does that mean?" I hear you ask; it's quite simple really. I'm going to go on what's called a Palaeolithic or Primal diet. Also known as the "caveman diet", the core idea is; if the cavemen couldn't have it, then neither can I. I won't be going 100% strict with it- and I will still be eating some of the "grey area foods" like bacon and cheese. However, some of the main things I definitely cannot eat are:

•| Potatoes (Though I can have sweet potatoes)

•| Bread

•| Pasta

•| Pastry

•| Legumes

•| Sugar

•| Processed stuff

•| Artificial stuff.

There are other things here and there that I won't be allowed, and I have downloaded an app that answers the question "Is it Paleo?" with a simple yes or no, and links to reasons. I'm still allowed chocolate, but only dark chocolate over 70% in cacao content, and another "grey area" allows for whole (blue top) milk in moderation. Alcohol wise- it's red wine only for the foreseeable.

Bread and pasta I think will be among the things I will miss the most- but looking for and trying alternatives will be interesting and fun. Anything containing corn syrup and such is out- so I will probably have to make my own ketchup and barbecue sauce if I can't find a nice organic one- that'll be fun too! Removing all of the items from the house I can't have will make it all much easier, as will shopping with my app in hand.

This, along with my cycling and exercise- will hopefully make a big difference in me over the coming months! I'll share good recipes I come across incase people want to try them. 

I can see me hating myself for this, but it's for my own good!

Interview with the Dictator.

Last week, Sony decided to pull the release of "The Interview" : a satirical movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco. The film depicts an assassination attempt on North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un by two hapless journalists. 

Since its initial announcements, it received massive backlash from the North Korean government, including threats of violent reprisal. Meanwhile, a group known as the "Guardians of Peace" have subjected Sony Pictures with almost relentless cyber attacks, incuding the seizure and leak of the studio's internal documents. Eventually they buckled, and cancelled the scheduled Christmas Day release. 

I am under no illusions; there's a good chance that this film will suck. It's probably juvenile, full of sex jokes, toilet humour and probably devoid of artistic merit and acting panache. That however is completely besides the point.

As President Obama reacted to the news he remarked that Sony pictures actions in this had been "a mistake".

"I wish they had spoken to me first. We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here..."  

The Commander in Chief then extrapolated on this, saying that if producers back down under this kind of external pressure, what is to stop it happening again? What will happen to satire as a comedic genre? In addition, could this lead to investigative documentaries a country or group doesn't like being denied airtime? Some commentators have suggested that there would be similar reaction if another nation mocked the president or the queen. Really? Why then, did we not do away with the likes of Black mirror, Spitting Image and The Thick of It, all of which brazenly stab at the heart of how the UK is run, how it conducts itself, and the figures who do it?

What happened here is a failure. Sony has succumbed to a temper tantrum by a country widely recognised as lunatic. North Korea are trying to bully, but in reality, they are the Yorkshire terrier of the world; barking and yapping at anybody who gets too close, but with very little to back it up. Yes, they aren't shy about attacking their neighbouring South, but they are ever under the UN's watchful eye. Allegedly they have nuclear weapons, but they would not dare use them; lest a Trident Submarine pop up, or B2 Stealth sail overhead to snuff them out. They would be the ant, and the rest of the world would become the boot. 

In the grand scheme of things they are utterly powerless- despite their regular proclamations of grandeur. This is the country that only allowed its citizens to view James Cameron's Titanic in cinemas within the past couple of years. This is the only country in the world still officially ruled by a dead person (the current leader's grandfather, Kim Il-Sung).This is the country that allegedly claimed to have sent a manned mission to the sun. How is that not worthy of ridicule? Hell, most of the time the studios needn't bother, because truth is stranger than fiction and more often than not, they already make an arse of themselves without outside help. After all, that is how you truly defeat a terrorist or threatening figure; you make a joke of them.

This is not even the first time the nation has been mocked; the previous "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il having been torn to shreds in the universally irreverent Team America: World Police, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. Presumably they received threats before and after the release of the film; but it was released.

Echoing President Obama, this cannot be allowed to become a regular occurrence. Kim Jong-Un already has control over an entire country who revere and adore him out of brainwashing or fear- are we really going to allow him to do the same to us?

The true reason for the season- This blogger's festive message.

I love winter, but there are elements of the festive season that bother me. 

One thing that keeps coming up year on year in various levels of focus, is the supposed "War on Christmas". By this, I mean Christians whining at people saying "happy holidays" and "taking the Christ out of Christmas". 

So when did this "war" start? Well, Christianity, unfortunately you started it. In order to better spread among people and gain more followers in your fledgling years, you adapted. You made your own holy days and festivals fall at the same times as existing solstice celebrations- an awkward fact, but a fact nonetheless. Christmas isn't even Christian- it's made from bits of Yule and Saturnalia; Germanic and Roman holidays respectively. 

But does it really matter?

People have been exchanging gifts for centuries, and for a long time before the current idea of. Christmas was invented. What does it matter what we call it?

I feel I have something to share with you though, for I know the true "reason for the season". The real reason we do this every year.

Ready?

Axial tilt.

No really, that's it. Because the earth is tilted on its axis as it orbits and spins, this provides us with distinct seasons and varying day lengths. Of them all, winter is the most dark, cold and miserable time of our year, and we could use the cheering up. It's not about spirituality, it's not about God, it's about making it all a bit more bearable,for ourselves and those we care about.

Another thing I dislike is how commercial it all is. For that reason, I buy very few presents and don't write any cards. This year, my family and friends that I am buying for will be getting their gifts in January, simply because my payslip will be better, and the festive price bubble will have burst, so I'll be able to get better things for people, without the mad dash. Anyone that does send me a Christmas card this year, as any other year; please be assured, any cards I receive are not thrown away: I recycle.

This is the most festive I've been in years, hope you enjoyed reading, and if you're reading for the first time, please enjoy the blog!

Happy holidays!!

Love your bumps.

Us guitarists can be an awfully strange bunch. 

Like any group, getting those among us to agree on what should and shouldn't be is tantamount to impossible. Be it the debates on active or passive pickups, tone woods, picks, guitar shapes, number of strings, etc etc...

But what I'm here to share with you all today, are my feelings on what are known as relic'd guitars.

What does that mean? Well, several guitar companies offer guitars that have a worn-in look. The guitar is made and finished, and then artificially aged, giving it bumps, scrapes, a faded retro finish, and wear marks in all the expected places a guitar would accrue over a long period of time. 

I can see two advantages to this. Firstly, the guitar will feel more "broken in" at first touch. A brand new guitar can be like a new pair of shoes in a manner of speaking; it can take time before it becomes familiar and feels like it is yours. Secondly, being all beat up looking absolves the player of any guilt for bashes they might make in the guitar on their own- what's another little chip, right?

The thing is, it costs. 

An example: a brand new American-made Fender Stratocaster will cost you in the region of £800. Modern build quality, attention to detail, a trusted brand and a classic design. You get all of this in pretty much any colour you like, there are a ton of different finishes, from candy-apple red to tobacco-sunburst to sea foam green. 

However, if you want a relic Stratocaster, the price rises- nay, skyrockets- to around £2000-2500. For a beat-up looking guitar. Why? 

The only reason I can think of, is that the process of making a guitar look 50 years older than it is, convincingly, must be quite time-consuming and therefore expensive to produce. Another reason, is that no two are exactly the same, because it's all done by hand. But if you really love the look of relic'd guitars, there is a much cheaper way to get what you want.

Buy the brand new one, and play it every day, for decades. A relic won't make you a better player- spending time with a guitar however, will. I can also guarantee that you will amass bashes and chips aplenty- and what's more- they will mean something to you. It becomes not just a bash, but a memory. It's a scar, and you and the guitar earned it somehow. The stories that they tell will be your stories. They can be tragic when they happen, but they become part of it and you learn to love it- it makes it yours. Relic guitars are the equivalent of a young hipster wearing "vintage" clothes. They have no history, they have no stories, they just try to look the part.

On top of this- I do want to take the opportunity to say that an old guitar, (or old guitar design) is not necessarily a good one. New designs have learnt a lot from their predecessors; what worked, what didnt, what felt wrong, and what felt right. Build quality has also improved over time as luthiers have learnt new techniques in how to get the best sounds out of the instrument, as well as making it ergonomic and easy to pick up and play. Back in the 50s and 60s, many of the classic guitars (particularly electric ones) were still finding their feet sound-wise, and had not yet made the tones they are now famous for. 

But these are just my opinions. If you are reading this and are a guitarist, what do you think? Leave a comment in the section below!

Psy-sick?

A couple of days ago, my mum said she thought I was coming down with a cold. 

Today, she is right. I've been up the whole night coughing, and this morning I coughed up what looked like half a road-kill ninja turtle. 

Eerie.

Fus-Roh-Damn you. (Skyrim Spoilers)

Well I finished the main plot line of Skyrim today.

I thought I would go and spread the good word to all the pivotal characters in the game. (Maybe ill get some extra loot, I thought.)

But then I got to Delphine at Sky Haven, and she says she and the blades will refuse to talk to me or help me if I don't kill Paarthurnax. 

And it turns out there's no way to back out of it. It just sits on your quest list unless you do him in- but I refuse. Paarthurnax is just too cool.

But then I found out that while he isn't an essential character, and can be killed, Delphine and Esbern are essential characters, and can't.

I felt kind of cheated. But because of where she was standing I did manage to shout her into a ravine. 

Felt like justice. Felt right.

I Find This Offensive.

I'm an opinionated person. This means that every once in a while I say something that people will disagree with. I will say some things that people might even feel offended by. 

Unfortunately however, there's nothing I can do about that.

I used to be a blogger on the website Tumblr. My most popular post (by a very long way) was a single sentence. I feel it was quite revealing of the general environment I was in:

"People on Tumblr need to realise... that just because someone disagrees with what you think, it does not mean you are being oppressed"

I am not about to retract something I've said because I've offended or upset someone. There was always a good chance of that happening.

Here is an example:

I think that Kate and Gerry McCann should be locked up. If they want to find the people responsible for their daughter's disappearance, they need only look in a mirror. If any working class or minority family failed in their duty of care to their kids the way they did- the social work department would take their other kids away. They are not victims; they are unfit parents. This is also the reason why poor Madeleine, out of all the thousands of children that go missing silently every year, gets so much attention, money and resources thrown at her case- because she is white, adorable, and from a well off family.

That could be regarded as a bit of an unpopular opinion. Do you disagree? That's fine. Are you offended? That's fine too. But that's what I think. I still think that way whether I have offended you or not.

Now you are perfectly at liberty to present an alternative point of view. I like a good debate. I would however insist that you actually present an argument instead of just telling me you're upset or offended at what I've said.

Plenty of things offend me. I'm offended by people who chew with their mouths open. I'm offended by suffering. I'm offended by people who talk over top of others, or do not allow other people to get a word in edgeways. I'm offended by anything "supernatural" for which there is no proof. I don't ask to be spared from these things because I'm offended, but I'm just not going to agree with you; and if you believe something like someone not deserving the same rights as you- because they were born different to you- then you can be damn sure I'm going to let you know how much oxygen I think you're wasting.

But I digress.

In summation; the point I'm trying to make is that it's okay if you disagree with somebody. It's okay to think differently. If you make it your personal duty to let everyone know you disagree with each and every little thing that comes out of someone's mouth, then you should probably back off. As well as that- what kind of pathetic existence is that, anyway? Not everyone has to think the exact same thing as you, and that's okay. If you can agree to disagree with somebody, and the two of you accept it, then you'll both be better people for it. And if it gets to you that much? Then maybe you need to reassess who you're spending time and data with. 

You're offended? Good for you. 

Writing cheques my body can't cash

There just aren't enough hours in the day. 

I would blog every day if I could, but I'm too busy doing other things.

I don't mean that to sound "holier-than-thou" or pretentious. I would love to write more often but other stuff happens and I don't have much sit-down time.

Hoping what I'm immediately writing after this will make up for the lull...

Been ages, so here's a personal update!

Hey readers!

Things have been quiet from my end for a while, I know that. This has been for several reasons:-

I was cramming the overtime 

I've been spending time with my girlfriend, friends and family

I've been doing a bit more gaming 

I've gotten into a new band, and as a result I've had to practice more and write music.

All these things take up time unfortunately, but that's life! I'll try and post some provocative articles over the next week or so and it'll be like I've never left. Promise. 

Today I wrote a letter.

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the passing of someone very dear to me. I wrote them a letter, of sorts, and sent it to their Facebook. 

---

Has it really been four years?

I know you won't read this. I don't even know if your family has any control or access to your Facebook at all. So I suppose a part of me writing this is about me. The larger part however, is that I truly miss you and everything that made you who you were.

Our friendship wasn't perfect- we had our rocky patches, our ups and downs. Towards the end we were nowhere near as close as we had been, and hadn't spoken in a good long while. 

Despite all that, from the moment I met you until the day you left, i thought the absolute world of you. I never hated you. For a time I loved you. 

I don't believe in god. I know you didn't either, because I remember your reaction to getting baptised. I don't know if you've gone to any afterlife, or you live on in some inscrutable way. What I do know is that you're free of pain. 

Aside from the hope Scotland might decide to be an independent country in a week, (I wonder what you might have thought of that!) the world is largely still the same. It got that little bit darker when you left, but it still has its bright and shining moments that make it all worthwhile, just like all the moments we had when you were still here.

Your journey was indeed, full of laughter. And I still remember, whether our paths cross again in some way or not- I walked with you once, and so a part of you walks with me still.

Love always

Scott xx

---

I know she won't read it, but a part of me feels better for having done so. 

I miss you terribly Natz. 

Tuning into the Feminist Frequency

Recently- I watched an ongoing series called Tropes VS Women in Video Games. I think it's fantastic and really gets its teeth into a lot of major problems with how women are represented in this industry. It also nods toward a larger problem of obsession with games being overly violent in general.

However, I felt the need to get in touch with Anita Sarkeesian and her team via their website contact box. 

This is what I wrote. If I am replied to I shall post it here as well.

---------------

Hello Anita and team Feminist Frequency!

I am a fairly recent viewer of the channel. 

Admittedly, having had seen some of the earlier material, I had dismissed it as being at the needlessly radical end of feminism, which does nothing to promote equality in any real terms. I now see that I have been mistaken, mainly due to not having viewed enough.

I particularly enjoy the current series- Tropes VS Women in Video Games. I am an avid gamer myself and have been since age 5 when I first switched on a SNES. Video games have always been a form of escapism for me in the same way as a novel. I agree that however beloved a game or franchise is, it should not be immune from criticism- indeed, criticism is an important part of any media. I fully agree that too many modern games are far too obsessed with violence and being "dark", "edgy", and "gritty". Despite there being more female central characters in video games than ever- the industry is not representing women fairly or correctly, and this needs to be addressed; both by external criticism and by change from within from more female game developers. I cannot understand all of these gaming trolls who think that your videos will somehow "be takin' their vidya away". Anything that serves to improve and diversify videogaming, as well as making it more accessible and enjoyable to more people ought to be celebrated.

I have a small piece of constructive criticism, particularly for Anita Sarkeesian. Anita, your criticisms of the industry and the wrongs it does to women in gaming are right on the money- the "Ms Male character" the "girls in refrigerators" and "damsel in distress" are all harmful and detrimental to attitudes towards women in a wider sense. However, when it comes to newer, more progressive games, they are glossed over quickly or largely ignored in your videos. Instead, you focus on what games of the past have gotten wrong. It's important to balance criticisms with good examples that already exist. I love that you mentioned Beyond Good and Evil, and rightly described it as a very positive game in it's representation of women- but you never went into any depth as to WHY that is. Why Jade is an excellent character. Why the plot is very gender friendly whilst still having that darker edge to it. 

Constructive criticism has to somehow suggest how a wrong can be made right, or ways in which something can actively be improved. Without that, it is seen as plain criticism at best; complaining at worst.

I have not forgotten the excellent concept "The Last Princess"- the game that you and team FemFreq coined as a woman-centric game with an empowered female lead character. I would buy this game in a heartbeat, as it sounds fantastic. In fact- why doesn't FemFreq enter talks with a studio to get this game made? If you were actively involved as design consultants then the game would set a standard for gaming attitudes. This was not only a sweeping away of harmful tropes and clichés; but a way to bypass them and actively address the issues in a very real sense.

At the very least however, I would really love to see parts of the series with a more positive spin. As well as informing and raising awareness of what developers are doing wrong; I would say it's as important (maybe even more so) to raise awareness on what they're doing RIGHT.

Sincerely yours, 

Scott Smillie.

Journey to Chickflickland - I - Pitch Perfect

On the face of it, this movie was never going to be a winner for me. 

(This retrospective/review/critique contains spoilers.)

The story is centred around head to head acapella contests- but also contains, alongside the usual teen-movie clichés, a smattering of misogyny, tokenism, chauvinism, and projectile vomit of which The Exorcist would be proud. 

The story opens with an acapella troupe, the Barden Bellas, that blow their chances at winning some competition or other, because they lose their focus, and their leader-queen-bee-type-figure (you guessed it) barfs impressively on the stage. All the while with commentators making (admittedly quite funny) quips from the balcony.

Enter Becca (or "Bec", played by Anna Kendrick) as she argues with her dad. She doesn't want to go to college and would rather be working on songs- a typical rebellious daughter trope then. During her enrolment- she is spotted by the singing group as they hunt for new members. Rather realistically, Bec exclaims that the whole premise is "pretty lame" and makes it clear she isn't interested as she can't sing anyway. However it doesn't end there. One of the  Bellas is having a quickie in the shower with "nondescript male student B" when she hears Bec singing, and confronts her. I clocked a belt round the head for my exaggerated feigned disappointment at the "opportunity wasted" in this scene to make the movie much more palatable. Instead of descending into debauchery, what we get is a rather uncomfortable harmonisation of "Titanium". Dang.

So now it seems Bec is on board, and after a serious of auditions headed by a flawlessly camp Christopher Mintz-Plasse (best performance in it, he is really selling it), joining her are:-

"Fat Amy":- one of the more likeable characters in the film, purely because of her realism, but she is the "token heavy girl" of the group, while all other members are the right side of curvaceous or tall and willowy.

"Extremely quiet softly spoken Asian girl":- I (rightly) called a "Police Academy" moment. 

"Token lesbian black girl":- because this movie likes its eggs in one manageable basket. 

 And a number of other rather nondescript, forgettable characters to make up the rest of the team. I actually had to ask Clare if two of them had been in the troupe from the start, as they literally had two lines in the entire film. The fact I can barely remember any names at all is telling.

Rivalling them are the "Treblemakers" ( The boys team! Boo! Hiss!) and while the rivalry is incredibly contrived and forced, I do honestly want to punch their ringleader- a prize douchebag named "Bumper"- right in the throat. The actor is channelling Jack Black for this performance, and does so incredibly badly- making the character not only irritating, but painful to watch. The other male characters in the film are easy to forget, apart from the object of Bec's affection who also performs in the other team *gasp!*.

The plot is actually easily surmised from here. The troupe make a stuttering start, failing to gel as they are all differing in style. Throughout the movie various classic songs from the past three and a half decades are viciously butchered, including songs by Ace of Base, Pat Benetar, Europe and The Bangles to name but a few. Coupled with their ringleader being a control freak and refusing to vary the routines as per Bec's suggestions, their performances become stagnant. Meanwhile their rivals streak ahead with innovation. Bec develops a fleeting romance with the cookie-cut teen male lead, (honestly, look at him and think of every teen movie ever made) risking her place in the troupe. They travel to a competition and hi-jinks ensue. Bec tries to innovate the wallowing performance and is thrown out. She falls out with "generic male lead" because, apparently- she has a problem with pushing people away- a development of character not explored in the film. The ringleader pukes some more. Quiet Asian girl falls into it and makes a Vom-angel (I wish I were making that up). Bec is let back in and assumes control of the troupe. They finally do it her way; with a Frankenstein's monster of a mash-up centred around a vocally flat rendition of "Don't You Forget About Me" ; arising because of "generic male lead" having introduced her to the world of film, with particular emphasis on The Breakfast Club and it's ending (well, can't fault his taste). It is a rip roaring success and they win the day. Cheers. Obligatory kiss. Curtains.

What really made this movie truly awful for me, was not just the desecration of classic songs, nor was it the yawning lack of character development, the needless and excessive "gross-out comedy" moments, or the plethora of rom-com tropes: it was the way the film was shot.

Throughout, I felt like I was watching a soap opera. The camera work was shaky, and kept following characters rather than having angles or scene placements to speak of. Couple that with pieces of text appearing on the screen and lame fading scene transitions and it all looked thoroughly amateur. You expect that in Hollyoaks or Emmerdale, but not on the big screen. The final performance had a degree of realism to it- because most of it was shot from what felt like a handicam in the crowd at a school talent show. Not a good thing.

I often rip on rom-coms for their unrealism. They create and display unachieivable standards and expectations for relationships. In this particular case however, I have to add that it is creating a romanticised illusion that acapella/glee clubs are both numerous, and incredibly sought after and desirable. These groups are in reality very niche, and you're either very into it, or give it a barge-pole berth. I am no great arbiter of what is cool and fashionable- but I do know how a generic group of Glaswegian high school teens would react to an acapella group, and those involved in it- it would make tabloid headlines. 

With that in mind, actually, it would have been interesting to explore an external bullying/victimisation angle- but instead everyone on campus seems to think it is not only completely ordinary, but something that warrants concert hall levels of production. Perhaps it's different in America.

All in; for me Pitch Perfect was woefully out of key. I won't watch it again, but regrettably I can't unsee or unhear it. It redeems a few points for a few genuinely funny moments, a couple of likeable, if fleeting characters, and also I suppose; because this is not a hetero-guy-friendly chickflick; from an "eye candy" perspective. Even with that in mind, this movie did not fill me with glee, just exasperation. 

3/10

P.s:- if this movie has scarred you, and you happen to be a fan of games, I recommend going onto YouTube to listen to the truly excellent Smooth McGroove to return to your happy place. 

Journey to Chickflickland.

Ive been neglecting this recently.

But over the next while there should be a bit more. 

You see, my girlfriend has a list of films she wants to put me through. I don't mind watching chick flicks, but they generally aren't my cup of tea, and when a movie sucks I tend to make my own fun by mocking it. 

I've got a wee notebook for the occasion, and I can take notes to do write ups on here for purpose of amusement.

Wish me luck!

How do we solve a problem like Gaza?

There always seems to be conflict of some kind in the Middle East. In my 25 years on this earth I cannot actually remember a time of peace there according to western media.

For centuries, tribes, and later countries, have been killing each other. Perhaps most notable is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which has taken another particularly ugly turn recently. 

The sides are massively mismatched, and it shows. Over 1000 Palestinians now lie dead, as I understand it 200-300 of them are children. Meanwhile, there have been only 46 Israeli deaths (at time of writing). This is in part due to the indiscriminate bombardment by Israel, and the fact that Hamas continue to operate in built up areas, including schools and hospitals. Also a massive factor is the Israeli missile defence system, "Iron Dome"- generously set up by the United States- which blocks almost all of the incoming rockets from Hamas. 

What many people want to know though,in discussion and debate- is what side you're on. I want to give my answer here and at length; partially to limit the amount of times I have to repeat myself.

Neither.

Let's remember for a moment what this is all about. Two groups of people, with different religions (one spawned from the other I might add) have laid claim to sites they both proclaim to be "sacred" and have been fighting over them ever since. In the years that have followed, there have been numerous political and social elements compounding the issue further- but religion lies at it's black heart. Two sides fighting over who's imaginary friend exists. It's ludicrous. 

I abhor violence on any level. Anyone who knows me knows I am far more likely to seek to talk on an issue rather than blow up and wallop someone; and I feel the same about the wider world. With that in mind, there needs to be a mutually agreed ceasefire, and Israel has to stop occupying more and more Palestinian areas and forcing people out. 

It would be great if the UN could just sit down with the leaders of the two countries, draw a line on a map, set up stringent border controls and say "there, now stop it. You live there, and you live there". Basically, how you deal with a pair of troublesome children. But it won't happen, because the UN are largely toothless. Often in the media, you hear about "sanctions" being levied on nations that commit atrocities, violate human rights or commit war crimes- but on the face of it- do they really have any impact? Sanctions were levied on Libya if I remember correctly- and Gaddafi went right on slaughtering anyone who dissented his government. It was only when allied forces banded together to arm the resistance and bomb the living shit out of Libya that things changed.

I'm not suggesting we turn the area into a crater and say no-one is having it (another child strategy; taking the toys away), but we do need to make good on being the progressive human rights leaders the western world countries think they are. We need to reform the UN so it actually has some bite to hold countries like Israel, Syria; and indeed larger powers like the USA and Russia; accountable for their actions on the world stage.

But I'm getting off topic. Absolutely, I find what's going on atrocious, and something does need to be done, both about a ceasefire, and holding Israel accountable for what is looking more and more like attempted genocide with each day. Having said that- offering my full support to Palestine doesn't seem right either. Socially and politically I'm right there, but as an atheist, giving my support to either side of a religious conflict doesn't sit right with me. I firmly believe that if you took religion out of the equation, it could be resolved in a matter of years. However, it's there, and despite the fact that these two peoples have the same skin colour, are breathing the same air and have the same blood flowing in their veins- they may as well be different species.

*as of this morning the UN made a presidential statement to call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire. This however is not a UN resolution and seems to be effectively just saying "err, you guys should um, stop blowing each other up or whatever"

Success and "Selling Out"

I did a post about music fairly recently, but I discussed music with a friend of mine recently, and I was reminded of a rather annoying characteristic of some music fans. In the past I've been called a music elitist and I accept that charge- it simply means my standards are high.  There are however, greater "sins" that some lovers of music commit. To fully understand what I'm talking about- let's examine some of the choiciest irritating phrases uttered by fans of this type, and respond to them.

"I listened to them before they got famous, now I don't":- Why? Have they changed dramatically since then in sound or attitude? If there is no legitimate shift of any kind; don't be alarmed, but you might in fact be what is commonly known as a pretentious hipster. Oh no- a relatively unknown band has broken ground and now people other than you like them. What a travesty.

"I was one of the first people to get into them":- Congratulations. We are all so very happy for you, are deeply moved by your unwavering superfandom, and think your oversized owl pendant is... Lovely. Tell me, what is it that draws you to nautical themes? Forgive the sarcasm, but I fail to see the merit in pointing this out, other than shameless posturing of course. 

"They used to be good, but they've sold out now, and they suck" :- Do they really? I'm sorry to be the one to do a little bubble-bursting, but selling out is actually a good thing. Think about it; a band you are a fan of- a band you like- has become successful and famous for their music. How is that not positive? If, as I mentioned before, the band has changed irrevocably as a result and you no longer like the actual music or it's direction in subsequent releases, that's understandable. That happened to me with Metallica. The material after "Load" didn't do anything for me, but it's enjoyed by many (yes, even St. Anger). It doesn't stop me enjoying the older records like Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning. It doesn't change how much I enjoy the grandeur of songs like "One", "Creeping Death" and "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)". It makes me wish that they were still doing that- but bands grow, experiment and, yes, change. That's just the way it is. 

And, probably my personal favourite selfish gripe:

"I hate that everyone listens to them now, they were one of my bands"

Wow. Take that in for a moment. Not only are you resentful of someone's success, but you would- given your way- keep them at an underground level: have their music reach and entertain fewer people.  You'd actually impede the progress of the bands you supposedly "love". That, to me is not how a fan of a band should behave. It's like you're saying "How dare they capitalise on what they're clearly good at. How dare they make a living from the art they've created and suffered for- they're MY band." I've honestly encountered people who will not divulge their taste in bands with other people; for fear word of their cherished artists might spread. If that does happen, they claim that they have been "ruined" for them. Such possessiveness is highly irrational- musicians are not property to claim some kind of ownership of. If someone I knew discovered a band I liked, I'd be delighted. I'd boil over with enthusiasm and spark conversation about them, because finding out someone shares a passion with you is awesome. Believe it or not- most bands out there don't want to be playing in bars to 20 people- ten of which aren't even watching- for their entire lives. Most bands have a little more ambition; a drive to share their music with more and more people, play bigger stages and entertain larger crowds. The more people you play to, the bigger the head-rush gets. Put your pathetic obsessions in perspective to that and realise that it isn't all about you- it never was. It's about musicians doing what they love and sharing it with the world.

If any of these phrases sound like you- ask yourself why that is- and whether you really feel right in saying it. If you find yourself uttering the last phrase frequently, then you are a sorry excuse for a fan, and should take a good hard look at yourself. 

I'll say it once again- selling out is a great thing. If you as a musician are accosted by some cardigan-wearing hipster and accused of it; take it as a compliment.

Five bands I've never liked

I'm a massive music fan. I love almost all walks of it from classical baroque to death metal. On the whole, I'm far more into the alternative and darker side of things for the most part (rock/metal etc); reason being, I can't stand the vacuousness of most modern pop. With that in mind, there are some bands that most people are surprised at me for not liking. A band or artist can be so widely liked that it's taken for granted that the next person will like them- and it's usually a pretty safe bet too. More recently, another has reared it's head, more as an annoyance than anything else. Babymetal seem to be capturing everyone's attention lately and I don't really understand why. The musicianship isn't that bad- but nobody pays attention to that. It's all about the cutesy outfits, the high-pitched "kawaii" squeaking and the choreography. In my view, and in my sincerest hopes, I think it'll be a fad that'll be forgotten in a year or less. Remember Skindred and their "reggae metal" sound? A bit? Vaguely? 

Exactly. 

So, here are 5 bands many people have been consistently surprised that I don't like.

Manowar:- Being a metal fan, liking Manowar is a given for many. Theyre metal personified, so they claim. Frequently. Try a drinking game with a Manowar album where you take a drink every time "metal" or "warriors" are mentioned. In fact- don't- because you'll get alcohol poisoning and I don't want that on my conscience. The band talk about battle and being "sworn to fight and die" etc. but I really do get the impression that the only way they'd defeat an enemy in true combat is through the stench of them collectively soiling themselves. Part of Manowar's appeal I suppose is that they are a parody of themselves; tongue firmly in-cheek. The problem there for me there is it just comes across as so contrived. It's the same recycled lyrics and lyrical form.  The same thing has happened for me with Tenacious D and Steel Panther- you can tell some jokes, and the first time, hell, the first couple of times, it's funny. Tell the same kind of joke over and over and it becomes dull and predictable. The only difference with Manowar is, I've never found them entertaining.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers:- Just how many songs can you write about California? Lots, seems to be the answer if you happen to be a member of RHCP. Many bands are guilty of milking tropes- Dragonforce, Motley Crüe and the aforementioned "comedy acts" to name a few, but the Chillies are  among the worst offenders. When you have musicians like guitarist John Frusciante (has now left the band) and bassist "Flea" on board, it's quite hard to fault the actual performance, and there are some killer basslines and  guitar riffs in there. RHCP however, have all the hallmarks of a band operating wholly and solely within their comfort zone. "Shall we try something new and experimental on this record that pushes us as artists, and the wider envelope of our genre of music? LOLNOPE- let's write another 8 songs that reference sunshine and Cali in some way, along with a couple that question existence with the logic of a stoner. That made us TONNES of money before!" They're a bloated stadium act, but their biggest crime against music to me is that they lack imagination. 

Motörhead:- Again, if you're into heavy music, how could you not like Motörhead? They're loud, brash, unrefined, and have been on the circuit for  decades that way. To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't hate the band, I don't even strongly dislike them, but nothing draws me to them. I would never consciously choose Motörhead. Nothing they do makes me come alive the way other hard rock or metal does, and when you're in a genre that's all about excess; that's a hard thing to reconcile yourself with. Furthermore, for as colourful and vibrant a character Lemmy is- his voice does nothing for me. It's like the man gargles gravel- and it has just about the same hue as it as well. It may sound at home on their own material, but it really stands out in sore thumb fashion whenever the band does a cover. Check out the renditions of Metallica's "Whiplash" or "Enter Sandman" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Okay, fine- I like Ace of Spades. 

U2:- Where do I start with U2? Let's get the obvious out of the way first. Bono is a twat. Self righteous and preachy about charitable causes, despite not paying tax in his native Ireland. Wearing those huge wraparound shades ("you're Irish, you shouldn't even OWN sunglasses"-- Ross Noble) and that air of smarminess. There's an urban tale of U2 once playing Glasgow that captures both this- and the stereotypical blunt directness of the Scottish people beautifully. In between songs, a light shines only on Bono as he paces back and forth across the darkened stage. The crowd has subsided and a murmuring quiet now lingers. *Clap*. Bono brings his hands together and shatters the silence. He waits for the echoes to fade and *clap* does it again. He begins to speak, "Everytime I clap my hands," *clap* "a child in Africa dies." The legend goes that a sole voice shouted up from the crowd saying "Well, stop fucking doing it then, you cunt!" Lots of rockstars have an ego, it's part of who they are, part of their persona. David Lee Roth, Randy Blythe, James Hetfield, Ozzy, Steven Tyler- all of these frontmen and many more have a commanding stage presence that is, or has been steeped in ego- but with Bono, he just comes across as a prick, like the kid in your class in school who was that little bit more well-off than everyone else, and knew it. For me, however, the worst part of U2, and the part I am most vitriolic over, is their "guitarist" David Evans. First of all, who the fuck calls themselves "The Edge"? Somebody who has picked their own nickname, that's who, (like LL Cool J- which stands for "Ladies Love Cool James, apparently)- the air of the prick runs strong in this group- but that's not why I can't stand him. No. To truly understand this, we need to examine what makes up his sound as a guitar player. In the documentary "It Might Get Loud" - David Evans discusses the origins and evolutions of the electric guitar alongside Jimmy Page and Jack White. For me, the third player should have been Joe Satriani, John Petrucci or Steve Vai- because then we would have had three genuine walks of guitarist. The "veteran" Page, the "minimalist" White, and the "virtuoso" would have all complimented one another. However, I digress; the documentary contains a scene where they examine 's live gig setup. What we find is a rack of effects and processing the size of a small caravan. That is the sound of "The Edge". Take that away, and it's gone. Everything he plays would sound simplistic and utter shit- in fact- he freely admits this in the documentary. The comedian Bill Bailey illustrates this beautifully in his live show "Part Troll" which I shall link here (http://youtu.be/H8dZwXnMrRU). How can you even call that guitar playing? Indeed, I would be loath to recognise the man as a guitarist. At times he plays one chord once and the effects do the rest! You could replace him with a keyboard- and lead electric guitar simply should not be that way. Effects add colour and depth to guitar parts; the delay and echo at the start of "Welcome to the Jungle"; the deep "jet engine" flange sound on the intro to Machine Head's "Davidian" for instance. However, that's all they are- embellishment. If you rely completely on them, is it even worth strumming strings at all?

And the number one band that everyone seems astonished at me for disliking?

Nirvana:- The big one. I cannot count the open mouthed surprise at my dislike for Nirvana. They're just not a good band. Sorry, but they're not, they are overrated and the diehard fans have delusions of grandeur. They're not even a good grunge band- bands like Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are far superior in this genre- and yet they get only a fraction of the attention. They are the archetypical example of "right place, right time" in terms of success. After the 80's, the market was saturated with glam rock and electronica- then grunge came along and swept people up in it's dour, yet fresh approach to rock music. And who was riding the crest of that wave? Nirvana. Returning again to a guitarist standpoint- if I hear one more person say that Kurt was a great underrated guitar genius I will explode. Solos that follow the vocal line are not imaginative and visionary- I've personally written and played better solos drunk. Playing powerchords in a circle is not a triumph in songwriting- listen to "Them Bones" by Alice in Chains; with it's changing time signature, offbeat groove and deep nebulous lyrics and tell me honestly you think "Heart-shaped Box" is better. Indeed, the best thing to come out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl going on to form Foo Fighters. The lyrics are bad enough- the delivery is worse still. Listening to Nirvana, for me, gives a sensation of being dragged; in fact, that's  a prevailing feel in the sound, the vocals drag, the guitar drags as the lead lines wallow around trying to find key. It's the sound of apathy; and it gives the impression of general half-arsed-ness. I like my music with a little more passion and a little less whine. Over all, what ever I smell off this band, it doesn't smell "like teen spirit"

So that's that, and I hope I've made my position clear on all of these. There are a few more than this, but none I felt strongly enough about to including in this list. If you like any of these bands, feel free to leave a reasoned counterargument in the comment section... Or an acerbic distribe about why I'm fundamentally wrong and should be killed for dissing your favourite band. Either works for me!

The future is not Orange.

Recently, there have been several large street marches by the Orange Order. For those who are unaware, it is an organisation founded by 1795 in Amagh in the sectarian conflict surrounding Ireland's secession from the rest of the UK.

Every year, these individuals march through the streets early on weekend mornings, holding up traffic and playing loud and obnoxious flute and drum music. 

My main complaint, however, is that these marches are a celebration of war and bloodshed. They are in reverence of one group of people mercilessly killing another purely because their beliefs are different. That is nothing for any human being to be proud of. The current marches serve no purpose except to provoke other people with opposing sympathies. It is disgusting, and it should not be allowed to continue. 

If anyone out there thinks it should be upheld as a "noble historical tradition" I would ask them the following question:

Do you find what ISIS is currently doing in the Middle East to be admirable and noble?

Essentially, it is the same thing as what happened all those years ago: one sect of a religion butchering another sect because they believe their own way of worship is the one true path to their god. As ever, religion is the virus that causes the condition of conflict. At their heart, religions have an in-group/out-group mentality, and at the heart of almost every conflict on the globe; religious division is often found at it's core. Whoever is with the in-group, is deemed moral, just and true. Whoever does not subscribe to their beliefs, is either a sinner who is blind and needs saving, or a heathen deserving of death. 

Sometimes war is a path that we are forced as nations, and as human beings, to walk. It is not something anyone should find gladness and glee in; but instead, a dignified respect for the lives lost and a regret that fighting was ever required in the first place.

Organisations like the orange order  have no place in our future- and belong in our past to be shamed and ultimately forgotten.

Lately

I have to say, by and large things have been going pretty shit for me lately. 

It just seems to be one thing after another. Big bills outta nowhere, personal dramas, more bills, lack of social interaction, extra shifts at work to help live more comfortably, and lack of sleep- all amounting to a tonne of stress. I can't relax now either; because I'm convinced it's not over yet and I'm about to be hit with something else.

If I didn't have my immediate family and girlfriend supporting me things would be a hell of a lot worse and for that I'm truly grateful. 

All the same- I'd really love to catch a break for a change. 

Five things I love and hate about Pokémon.

I adore the Pokémon series. Even as a 25 year old man. I don't mind admitting that. I'm also considering investing in a second hand 3DS so I can play the new ones, X and Y. 

The games have such a charm and uniqueness about them- but are far from perfect- so without further ado- here are my top 5 things I love about the games:

1. The adventure:- not knowing what's lurking in the grass ahead. That moment when the screen freezes and dissolves with that frantic descending music. The silhouette of your encounter tracking across the screen before the big reveal. That moment when your pokemon that you've been training for ages starts to evolve unexpectedly. The excitement of seeing the sprite of a legendary pokemon standing just ahead of you, and you nervously save the game. As well as all that, pokemon is a journey. You're on a quest to get all the gym badges and win the pokemon league and be the very best (like no-one ever was; yo.) There's a lot to it! 

2. The challenge:- There are very noticeable difficulty spikes throughout the games, particularly the latter half of the gyms, plus rivals and bosses. Also, wearing down a legendary who will not stay caught when you have a finite number of balls can be pretty nail biting and pleasantly infuriating.

3. The variety of types, moves and how they match up:- The elemental advantages and resistances are pretty intuitive (though I don't think I'll ever understand why 'normal' types are immune to 'ghost' attacks- playing field levelling maybe?). No pokemon is invincible by any stretch of the imagination and with 'Pokémon special abilities' added in the later generations- strategy just kept getting more and more intense. In addition there are an amazing volume of moves, ranging from "scratch" and "bite" to "future sight" and "tri-attack" which pokemon can learn by levelling and by teaching as they are discovered in gameplay.

4. The varying environment and puzzles:- Some of the "dungeons" are actually quite tricky. There are underground labyrinths, secret bases full of teleport pads, tunnels, booby-trapped gyms, and- in later games- the sea floor. All teeming with new pokemon to battle and catch at the same time.

5. The satisfaction:- Getting that feel when you got your eighth badge is awesome. Getting through the hellish gauntlet of "Victory Road" feels like coming up for much needed air (I sigh involuntarily and audibly upon seeing the exit). Beating the Elite Four and the Champion- who is usually an established rival- you do really feel like nobody can best you. And knowing that Mewtwo is yours after battling with it for 45 minutes (because you stupidly used your masterball on something shit) is pretty amazing... Even if after that there's really nothing left to battle in gen. 1; you may need to actually find some friends! Gasp!

And now, the things I really, really hate. Like- can't stand.

1. HM's:- Hidden Machines are stupid. In generation 3 there are EIGHT of them that you HAVE to use to finish the game. If they put all of the HM related obstacles in one dungeon- four of your pokemon would have to learn one and two would have to learn two. That wouldn't be so bad,if you could discard these taught moves once you didn't need them any more- but no! HM moves can't be deleted unless you visit "The Move Deleter". So to be clear, if you're levelling and you get a new move, you can't just save over an HM- not even with another HM. You'll have to delete one of the other moves you presumably want to keep. There's no pokemon (to my knowledge) that is an HM "mule" and can learn a lot of them- but let me give you a scenario. To advance the game in pokemon Emerald, I had to teach my Tentacruel 'Surf', 'Dive', and 'Waterfall' which leaves one move it can learn and replace by levelling. One! They fixed this slightly in later generations by introducing a system by which you can relearn previous moves after deleting to make space- but even so- HMs are an unnecessary hassle that just annoy me.

2. The same pokemon/trainers cropping up:- I want to take this opportunity to get something out of the way. I hate Zubat, and I LOATHE Golbat. These pokemon are in almost every cave, in every game, of every generation and they drive me absolutely mental. Toward the end of the game the Golbat get pretty strong too. So if you're on your last, slightly weaker final pokemon in a cave, and one of them show up; because of their high speed stat, your Zangoose is cooked (see what I did there? ;) hehe). I also want to meet whoever thought it was a good idea to make it so you "Can't Escape!" from them, and punch them in the throat. But this leads me neatly to my main points here. There's nothing worse than getting to a new unfamiliar area and finding the same pokemon you've been meeting on every route. Sure, some are more common than others, but why not vary it a bit? On top of that- why are all the level 3 ones still bothering me? Can't they level proportionately; or better still; leave me the hell alone? Same with trainers. Why do they have duplicates? In generation one, I'm certain there is a bird trainer which has 6 Pidgey (literally the first wild one you see) all at the same level. Why? I want battles that keep me on my toes and mess with me; and aside from gym battles, I'm not getting that.

3. Cookie cutter stuff:- There are so many pokemon now that they have taken almost every sort of shape you can imagine. Yet, without fail, in every single generation, there have been, among others, constants:-

• The Rattata clone

• The Pidgey clone

• the Pikachu clone.

And I'm actually going to list each generation here for this, so here goes.:-

1. (Er...) Rattata, Pidgey, Pikachu

2. Sentret, Hoothoot, Pichu

3. Zigzagoon, Wingull, Plusle/Minun

4. Bidoof, Starly, Pachirisu

5. Patrat, Pidove, Emolga

6. Bunnelby, Fletchling, Dedenne

Honestly. Look them up if you don't believe me. How about that eh? They always come in threes, the weak rat no-one wants, the "starter bird" and some kind of electric rodent. Without fail. I know Game freak and co are probably starting to run out of ideas, and have certainly produced some really daft pokemon over time (e.g. Klefki, Swirlix, Vanillite, Trubbish, Klink, Nosepass- the list goes on)- but surely you can be a little more innovative.

4. Unlockable "red tape" areas:- You physically can't enter certain areas until criteria are met. They are literally blocked off until you pass a certain point- sometimes without telling you- and you can then suddenly go in. More traditional RPGs have a better way of doing this- in certain areas the enemies are simply too strong, you get your ass handed to you and decide in of yourself not to go back until you have grown a giant set of swinging balls. My dream is for there to be a pokemon open world game; a map that you can just wander about in and make your own mistakes. But we have a long way to go.

5. Can't catch 'em all:- there's 718(?) now. You just can't. Back in gen one and two, the iconic slogan was actually doable;  it was a feasible proposition. Now it's a farce. I mentioned earlier about an open world game. I would ideally expand that to online open world game. I'm talking Skyrim sized maps, maybe done in a sort of Borderlands/Windwaker art style. That way, they could gradually add the new regions and create a world where you could catch any ones you wanted. The places are all established. From both the games and the animated series the sheer area of world that could be used is enormous. You could have quests, events, swarms, migrations, Team Rocket attacks- so many possibilities. You could battle mates in real time, enter tournaments and go hunting in the wilds together. And with it online- there wouldn't be a memory and storage problem because it would all be "in the cloud" under your login. It could be so good; the biggest question is why they haven't done something like it already.

But yeah- unless they make a yawning gaping arse of it I'll probably continue to enjoy these games. The ideal one may be a pipedream for now- but I remain hopeful. 

A special kind of person.

As you know, not everyone can be a psychic, or a medium.

It takes years to hone the skill. It takes focus. Some say that it's a gift that is bestowed on them from an early age, and I'm inclined to agree- it must be- because it takes a special kind of person to profit from people's grief, sorrow, loneliness and desperation. Not only that- but to blatantly lie and say they can contact departed love ones. Why does anyone accept this? It's sick and depraved. How such people are allowed to operate as a business (because that's what they are) is completely beyond me. It is literally profit from suffering. 

There is no steadfast evidence that any human being can establish contact with those who have died. There is also no evidence for the "spirit world", extrasensory perception, or the accuracy of any form of divination or fortune telling. Until proven otherwise, they are all heartless money grabbing charlatans. 

How I would solve the recession.

II have a number of measures that I would implement to ease the economic crisis in this country and in the wider world as a result. I'm half-tempted to get into politics to campaign to have them implemented. However, my methods would prove unpopular with some groups of people. It may become clear as you read further.

End tax exemptions for churches and religions:- There is an interesting photo circling the internet about the amounts of money the church gets out of paying in the United States, and that sum being able to pay off the entire cost of homelessness in the country and, give every homeless person somewhere to live. I don't know if that's true- but as of 2012, the annual tax that the church dodged in the USA was 71BILLION DOLLARS. The figure wasn't available for the UK upon my searching the web, but in a way, that's even more disturbing if we don't actually know what they're getting away with paying.

Introduce a tier system and maximum wage for professional football:- How much is one man worth? . If your name happens to be  Wayne Rooney; the answer to my initial question is £300,000 per week, or 15.6million per annum. That is disgusting. We are quick to jump into the throes of outrage when bankers are awarded their ludicrous bonuses; but the obscenity of footballers wages should be seen as an international disgrace. There should be a tier system and wage cap set by the central governing body of football and applied across the board. If you play well, you climb the ladder. There is no way on earth that one man kicking a ball around a field for 90 mins at a time should make in a week what an average British worker makes in 15 years.

Introduce a bill of rights and a constitution within the UK:- "What's this?" I hear you say "This one seems a bit out of place, no?" Actually, not really. If the rights of every British person were enshrined in law as they are in the states- it would really clean up our justice system, and as a result- save us all money. Think of all the money currently wasted on dragging out appeals. We do have laws- but we really don't have a framework for the rights of each and every person in Britain.

Decriminalise currently illegal substances and have them regulated by our government:- This would generate millions, possibly billions in tax revenue, and all but eliminate drug related crime in this country as it would kill the illegal dealer market stone dead. Any drug user would also be a lot safer, as the substances themselves would not be "cut" with harmful materials- a process that serves no purpose but to maximise profit for illegal dealers- who would not be able to compete. 

Disestablish the largely ceremonial monarchy:- They serve no active worthwhile purpose in our government as it is. It's time for them to go. They pay no tax- and details of their cost to the taxpayer, as well as their list of assets makes for grim reading. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family) Furthermore- a system of inherited power holds no place in a country (or indeed a world) which recognises a democracy as an ethical and just system of governance.  Allow the current monarch to live out her reign, then strip the family of its assets and subsidies. After that is done- open the doors of the houses and palaces to the public as areas of historical and cultural importance. Charge admission.

Reform parliament and disband the House of Lords:- Speaking of outdated concepts, how about this one? A party votes in their wealthiest former employees and landowners, giving them a cushy position of power where they do very little, and yet hold a large sway over legislation. Just to stress once again- not one of these 800 peers are elected by the public- but we are paying for them. 

But like I said- most of these would likely be quite unpopular. Saying that- ask yourself for a moment why they're unpopular. Just think about it. if Scotland becomes independent though- there might be good reason to get actively political. Who knows?

(Images retrieved from google image search- I claim no ownership)