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...