It's the name of the blog dammit!

This is attempt number two at a blog post that is based more on a whim than any other. The main source of my ire I have not yet located, probably why I am still struggling to write any decent metal lyrics but can whack out a good couple of riffs with relative ease. The most recent event to find this well of anger came from Senior. Some of his attitudes towards how I conduct myself seem to be all to similar to this government for me not to have a brief rant on this topic.

The most recent incident was over this very blog. On here I do not tend to moderate anything I say, with the exception of expletives as there can be so much more inventive insults that the crude one word ejaculations most people are content with (ejaculation is also a synonym of exclaim to justify its position in the sentence as more than just a word to titillate). This has led to what I say becoming extreme, my simple counter to this is a simple one. Whom, when irate, is anything other than extreme?  Ire is an emotion of extreme. Ire is not reasonable. Ire does not think and moderate. It shouts curses screams and makes wild and outrageous accusations. Unfortunately the title of the blog appears not to reference in peoples minds when reading what I have posted. Maybe I should have a warning sticker on the site?

The incident over this blog was Senior following up on what I had done with this blog. I posted about this, and decided there were several options. I had informed senior that there rather than his suggestion of deletion, there was the more simple version of changing the e-mail address with which this site is registered to one that isn't my personal address. So when Senior comes to ask the follow up question about what I have done with my blog how would you, an impartial (assumption made you do not know me or anyone close to me) reader, pose the question of effectively disconnecting my real-life persona from this blog? The most sensible method would surely be something akin to "Pingu in Portugal, what have you done with your blog since I last talked to you about it?" Sensible, no?

Now Senior's inquiry into the affair should be surprising, as Senior canvassed for the Iron Lady herself and states he is right of centre and liberal. The question he posed me was "Have you deleted that blog yet?"... Now where to begin on this? What aspect of this should I deride first?

None. First I shall take you further into the workings of Senior's mind. In the first paragraphs I used the word "some" referring to Senior's attitudes towards me. The second comment made to me is one that I ignored at the time, and one that I may at a later date come back to him over. Senior if you are reading this, have a look at Blog Content post to check that it is you and not OB, the reason I didn't go to your old school too, Then please do ask me about what I have said on this post. If you thought you had bad arguments with OB then prepare for a new Number 1. The comment in question was said in relevance to going to a new university to study a different course. "You can make some new friends, other than your real ale lot." Now I have never been noted for my reliance on remembering statements verbatim, and I have not here (hence why it is merely a comment, not a quote). I do know, however, that the statement started with the old "no offence" comment, thus insuring the comment is offensive if only that part is remembered, and was stated in such a manner that it was all but unsaid that my current crop of friends was undesirable in his eyes.

Combine these two comments and what do we get? Effectively, Senior trying to run my life as he believes would benefit me the most. Yes it is all good intentions on his part, though I increasingly struggle to find the benefit to me in deserting good friends, but it is still an attempt to control me. Having caused significant disappointment in recent times, and taking into account the ease with which agreeing and ignoring generally works upon Senior, I have generally suffered these type of comments with no fuss. The advice imparted upon me is generally very good and based on many more years experience than I have.

Now though, I tire of it. I may well be Pingu Junior, but I have well passed the time when I need to be watched over and monitored. A staple comment I now find exiting Senior's mouth is, "How many drinks is that?" with a simple answer of 'none of your business' readily available I go for the "It's my second, the same number as you." Though the feel I always get in response to this comment is 'Do as I say. Not as I do.'

This all combines to leave me with the simple conclusion that Senior is acting in the manner that a Lib\Lab\Con government would want to be seen. Informing you of how to act and behave because it is for your benefit. This may be why I am feeling increasingly irritated at home by complete non-events that would make a mole-hill a planet, let alone a mountain. I can see what a benign intervention should be and what the government actually does, or that I see what the government and find myself viewing the benign acts of Senior and LG and feeling them as the malicious forces that a Lib\Lab\Con government would be.

The audacity to imply that my friends weren't up to scratch. The arrogance to assume that the course suggested had to be the course taken, and the hypocrisy of the 'Do as I say, not as I do.' I am starting to understand why OB is moving to Exeter. In the short term, my exodus to the Sou' West is inevitable. In the long-term, my exodus from this country is probable. The new country to which I will be a citizen, if only an unhappy one, has recently become Switzerland. If I am gonna make a break from this country I my aswell lose the lingo too. Make the break that much more surgical.

A quick return to the title of the post. A person is allowed their opinions. Do not judge a man 'til you have met him. It is easy to let your invention rule when it is you and a computer screen against no-one. Never judge a man by his blog.

(I wanted to do never judge a blog by its owner. Unfortunately it got the message around the wrong way)

Music of the Revolution

I may be biased on this subject and am pretty sure of at least one dissenter to this view. I have been thinking on what would be the music best suited to support a popular uprising against this current authoritarian government should it somehow manage to obtain power in the upcoming election. I shall list as many genres as I can think of an attempt to argue both sides for each genre.

House/Techno/Garage... the rave/club music.
Pro: When the rave scene first came about Thatcher made laws to stop it such was the fear the establishment felt of it. Connected with a disregard of authorities.
Cons: Disconnected from politics, its disregard of authority is through apathy and ignorance rather than deliberate.

Classical
Pro: Music that can inspire people to great deeds, from a time before current politics, disconnected from politics
Con: Seen as an elitist genre of music, can be too complex for many people, too long

Musicals
Pro: Written for groups songs, some very connected to the people's struggle against power 'Les Miserables', populist and catching
Con: Popular contemporary musicals are mechanically produced, contrived, escapist and fail to engage with any principles of a liberal revolutionary.

R n B (rhyme n beatz)
Pro: Large popularity base to access
Con: Complete absence of politics, escapist, contrived by suits

Hip Hop
Pro: Politically motivated music genre, real passion in music, about struggle against authoritarian power
Con: Modern version (krunk) is contrived and removed from politics, struggle was not just liberal but also racial

Pop
Pro: Popular
Con: Contived by men in suits, only apolitical if no threat to status quo that wasn't contrived by the suits

Jazz
Pro: Apolitical
Con: Elitist, lacking emotion necessary for revolution

Blues
Pro: Music of political struggle, extremely emotive, popular not populist
Con: Already music of a political struggle, struggle more racial than political

Punk:
Pro: Very political, extremely passionate
Con: Used in prior political struggle, declined since end of Thatcher

Metal
Pro: Sometimes political, extremely passionate, continuous hard-core large fan-base over all generations
Con: Lacks huge support, politics vary

The last three genres are listed in order from 3rd to 1st.
I believe that metal would be the correct candidate. Blues was for the black man against the white master. Punk was the middle finger at Tatcher. Metal has yet to really have its fight against the authority. The lyricists of metal bands may vary from left to right, but when you tell them what to do they will casually light up a fag, flip the fingers at you, blow smoke in your face and tell you in so many words to "go away and leave us alone or unpleasant things will happen to your body." Metal does have its softer side, its remorseful side, its melancholic side. The songs that are sung to remember the beloved deceased, but come battle what other genre is there to compare. There is no 'Battle Punk' or 'War Blues'. I doubt there are any other genres so popular that are so inclusive either. How many popluar/significant genres had their 'dress code' decided by a gay man. This is a genre that simply demands respect, give it and you shall be shown an equal measure, show intolerance and you shall be scorned.

Please do disagree, this has been written when tired and tipsy, and I know that I have forgotten rock, I shall do it as an editorial tomorrow or something. But in the war of the liberals against the authoritarians, I know which genre should own the anthem for the liberals.

Blog Content

In recent times I have not been receiving much in the way of good news, apart from a second attempt at hosting a party has managed to entice a friend all the way from Manchester. I have received two rejections from universities, fortunately there I am still awaiting a response from my favoured university, and issues relating to the opposite sex have returned to their usual position after trying to start two relationships in third gear. That which I have just stated however is entirely irrelevant to point that this blog pot shall be questioning. My genetic seniors have in the past couple of days both talked to me about my blog and its contents. They were both approaching it from the same view point, but have addressed it in two different methods.

I am more often called my mother's son than my father's. This tends to be due to how I deal with people. Senior (my father) is always described as an alpha male, so is older brother which makes this house interesting when both occupy it, and I have a very good method of dealing with him. Like OB (older brother) I can disagree quite fundamentally with him, and in a fashion true to my family heritage I can either talk the hind legs off of a donkey or can teach a mountain about immobility. Unlike OB I do not confront senior on every little matter, I go by a family friend's method of dealing with the alpha male: "Agree with him, then go away and do what you want", or as I term it "say yes and don't do it". My analogy however is an over simplified view, and I am moving rather rapidly toward the second method. I say this as my father recently consulted/confronted (not sure which one to take it as) and requested that I delete it.
My initial reaction was, internally, complete outrage. I let him continue however as he is older, though not necessarily wiser, and the point he made was one that did force me to think. I should distance myself from this blog as potential employers may well look at it and not like my impassioned views, extreme I do believe was the implication.
Life Giver, LG (mother), discussed this with me the next day. Now I say I am oft described as my mother's son, and it is due to my handling of people. My mother does not have the same granite running through her veins that Senior does so is much easier going and enjoys discussions, as do I. Senior tends to view these as arguments. I did once have a three hour debate on the merits of senior researchers spending time preventing the "theory" of intelligent design being taught in science classes in the USA. Since that debate I have been banned on debating things with that member of the family. Anyway past the waffle and back to the point on the talks about this blog. LG was more concerned by the language I used to portray my views on this blog. I was being more like Farage than like Hannan, my description not hers. She thinks that I should play devil's advocate against myself on this blog. Whilst that maybe more interesting and intellectually challenging it was never really the point of this blog.
I started this blog as a method of releasing unresearched, unforgiving and possibly unreasonable rants about anything. It has turned political mainly due my paying attention to politics, which makes me more irate than those poor overpaid actors, playing at being athletes for several million pounds a year... otherwise known as footballers. I wished for people to challenge me on any points they disagreed with, but with only one person ever replying I never do really research much more into what I rant about.
From these two conversations I see myself left with several options, which I shall turn into a poll. What should I do with this blog, and are those options possible:

1. Delete blog so it can't be found by potential employers and give up on this.
2. Delete blog so it can't be found by potential employers and start a new anonymous one.
3. Remove my name so that I can't be traced to this blog and continue as is.
4. Remove my name so that I can't be traced to this blog and start playing devil's advocate with myself on it.
5. Change nothing and continue as is.
6. Change nothing but the parameters of the blog to play devil's advocate with myself.

Having been told to delete it outright by Senior, I am most tempted by 5 as I'll be damned if I'll be forced to do anything. Reasoning it through either 4 or 6 seem like the more logical choices. 1 and 2, to me, are there simply because they are options. If anyone can think of impossibilities in any of the options 1 to 6 or can think of others please comment with them and I shall start the new poll on Monday.

Nestle are idjits

I loved Shreddies..

The new Shreddies ad though...

I think that they might have just lost a customer...

I struggle to understand the reasoning behind using this new ad though...

We aren't all Wayne Rooney or that one character from Little Britain with the foot fetish...

I'm feeling quite disturbed by it...

Hence all the continuation mark things...

Good for you advert grannies but...

EW!

First Time Voters Question Time

I have just watched the titular program on BBC iPlayer. What a brilliant idea, what a farce. Yet again the politicians abuse the Queen's to avoid or ignore valid points and concerns of the, sometimes hard to understand, audience. A large portion of time was spent on voter apathy. When the panel was twice asked how we were supposed to bring ourselves, the youth, the first time voters to obtain the will and desire to vote when the 3 major parties hardly differ. Not once did the MPs representing their party say "We are different!". Not once did they dare try to criticise their own or the others' leaders in saying "We must be different! We must make our stall clear from those of the others who seek to triumph over us." Not once. They went on how they must engage us, how they must garner our support, still avoiding the blindingly obvious and continuing to fail to answer the question, and that it must come from both directions not just from the political elite. They talked about how Westminster must seem isolated and aloof. Still they did not dare question their leaders and did not answer the question.

When the politicians fail the Queen's in this manner how am I to gain trust in them, how am I going to want to vote for them, for ANY of them? Talking with friends last night I said that I was most likely to vote UKIP. This caused some consternation as it was a 'throw away vote'. Yes it may well be in a Buckinghamshire constituency, but when I see David Cameron I hear Tony Blair, I hear a man who cannot even set out a stall with tangible policies that don't contradict each other or even make sense; when I see Nick Clegg (one of the audience didn't even know his name) I do not see a liberal party, nor do I see a party with common sense and the ability to return to the people what belongs to the people; when I see Gordon Brown I see a dictator, a small man with a small mind who cannot hear nor see reason if it does not agree with him. So I want to vote for a party that will do something, anything. I have considered UKIP and they at least offer a national referendum on whether we are in or out of Europe. But why vote when it will probably merely logged as a protest vote? I want to vote but please, someone throw me a bone here!

Harry Harman

I hope you've all gone and voted Harriet for rear of the year. I've just been watching the F*** You video on Freedom-2-Choose blog and just happened to notice the harpy. I also watched the two anti-smoking videos on there too, one of which is a blatant lie which could only seek to cause hysteria panic and incite hatred. LIT CIGARETTES CANNOT LIGHT PETROL! IT IS A LIE! IT FAILED OVER 200 BLEEDING TIMES IN CONTROLLED REPEATABLE TESTS! NOT ONE SODDING FLAME!

Well having seen the adverts then seeing the old bag Harry, I decided that if ever I saw her I would demonstrate if I treated her as another man, as she seems to want us, and give her nice hard punch square on the nose as I would to any other bloke who insulted me as much as her. Such as:

Gorgon Broon
Ding Cameron
Rajendra Pachauri

I'm sure there are many more you think I should add to this list but for me to want to hit someone it takes a lot, I almost left Hillary Clinton on there but the old bat still admits that she's a woman and therefore is not identical to a man so I couldn't hit her for trying to screw us in the Falklands. They want to be ours goddammit!

At lest the F*** You song is keeping me from giving this laptop a quick lesson in high velocity aerial crash landings.