British pop singer M.I.A has sparked world wide criticism in the media over the video clip to her new song Born Free. The 9 minute video clip which depicts U.S authorities going house by house to round up all the red headed men for execution has even been banned on YouTube!

I'll be first to admit the video is over the top graphically violent, and honestly the song itself is none but a bunch of noise (maybe I'm just getting to old) but I don't think it deserves the sort of criticism it's getting if on the other hand we're going to say pop stars like Lady Gaga are allowed to have their extremely sexually explicit video clips and movies like Saw IV are allowed to exist. In fact if anything I'd have to say M.I.A's video clip is rather tame compared to any of the remade films Rob Zombie has done. And more over, M.I.A and ROMAIN GAVRAS were attempting to make a political statement with this video clip. Sure the clip does a clumsy job at making it's statement, but it quite clearly has hit people hard (otherwise it wouldn't have so much media attention) so one must assume it has at least partly fulfilled it's purpose.

Do I agree video clips like this should exist? No, of course not, but I disagree with video clips like those of Lady Gaga and movies like Rob Zombies remake of Halloween even more. None of this crap should exist, it's not art, it's not expressionism, it's not about complementing music or benefiting society. It's pornographic sexuality and violence for shear shock value and commercial gain. All of these types of videos should be banned, not just one video that has a bit of violence in it. I certainly don't think it's appropriate that I walk into a shop like Big-W and my children can see Lady Gaga half naked, dancing around like a whore on the LCD Tvs. We need to really take a long hard look in the mirror at the crap we're allowing Record companies to pump out and expose our children to.

If you're looking for a job at the moment but haven't been able to get your foot in the door, there's a good chance it's your resume` that's holding you back. Think about it, some poor schmuck in the HR department has to shuffle through hundreds, if not thousands of resume`s attempting to find the right candidate for the job. The person in HR is only human so of course there is also a pretty good chance he's going to skip a few resume`s in there.

So it makes perfect sense then that you need a resume that draws attention and keeps it. A Resume` filled with powerful words that make it impossible for you to not get an interview, but you already knew that right? What you probably don't know if you're having trouble getting a job is just how to create such a resume`. Enter Resume Dictionary, the website that takes all the hard work out of writing a powerful, attention seeking resume`! The site has tons of free resources on how to write a great resume, heck there is even a list of power words to use, their meanings and the impression they'll give! All for FREE!

What to guarantee your resume` is perfectly up to the job? Resume Dictionary offers a free resume review service. All you do is fill in a short simple form about the type of job you're going for, attach a copy of your resume and click send. Within 5 days a real person will have physically looked over your resume and will provide you with a critique, with stacks of tips on how to improve it. Did I mention it was FREE? Seriously what more can you ask for? So go on, visit Resume Dictionary, the worst thing that could happen is you actually get the job.

Recycling, it's sold as one of the potential saviors of our planet. The idea of taking old things, reducing them to base resources and creating new products; sounds like a plausible solution in theory right? Wrong! Recycling doesn't make economic sense, nor does it make total environmental sense. But let me explain myself a little better.

Economically speaking manufacturers normally would pay for their raw materials. A drink bottle manufacturer for example would normally either pay per ton of plastic pellets or (if they process their own plastics) the going price per barrel of oil. Now throw recycling into the mix; suddenly the bottle manufacturer has a way of recovering their product without cost, then reworking it to produce a new bottle. Due it doesn't stop the need for raw materials, but that's down to lack of recycling volume, not concept. Essentially recycling means we, the consume provide to the manufacturer their raw materials, for FREE, which they then sell back to us. Can you name one other example of where a company is able to get product legally for free?

This I feel is the single biggest reason for lack of total adoption of the recycling schemes. If however the manufacturers were willing to pay for their product, that is to say they buy off of us the raw materials, this not only makes more economic sense, but would mean a greater take up of recycling. Think about it, if you knew your drink bottle, newspaper, catelogs, tin cans or other recyclables had a dollar value, you'd be more likely to recycle now wouldn't you? You'd also be less likely to litter. This simple change to the scheme would make a massive difference and would see landfill shrink dramatically.

Environmentally however, sure recycling cuts the amount of new raw materials needed, but it doesn't cut out the need for new raw materials all together. Even with 98% - 100% adoption of the recycling scheme we still need to use new raw materials in order to manufacturer recycable products; at best it slows the problem down it however solves nothings. Beyond that, recycling doesn't change the pollutants industral manufacturers produce; if anything it increases it. So on an environmental front, it only slows the consumption of new raw materials and does nothing to fix the problems caused by the manufacture process itself.

Recycling, a scheme that makes big claims, but makes no economic sense and little environmental sense.

My weekly series on the bible continues this week where I explore some of the Contradictions in the bible.

Section 2: Contradictions

The bible is absolutely filled with contradictions. It seems one moment it's telling us to or not to do something, or that things are or aren't a certain way, then suddenly and inexplicably takes the complete opposite stance. Lets take for example the 6th commandment (5th of your Catholic or Lutheran) “You Shall not Murder” (“You shall not Kill” if your Catholic). Think about that for a moment, here is a commandment which states very clearly that killing is a major sin, note the significant lack of the word Human in that commandment. That is to say the commandment itself makes no definition as to it referring to a particular species, and thus one can only make the generalised assumption from the text that murdering anything that is alive, be it human, other animal or planet is a sin under the bible.

But lets forget that a moment and for argument stake take it under it's traditional interpretation as to only applying to the killing of other humans. The bible still very much contradicts this stance in itself. Take the following verses taken from the bible for example, and please note that a reference to both where you can find the verse and in what version of the bible it will appear.

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” (Leviticus 20:27 NAB )

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB )

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare... See More or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB )

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB )

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9 NAB )

Now of course there will be those who talk about old and new testaments but before you do, let me just say this. If the bible is the word of God, then how does it really matter if it's old or new testament? Think about it for a moment, if you believe the bible is the world of god, then the old testament has to be just as valid as the new testament, otherwise heck why would it be in the damn bible? I mean we've already talked about how each version of the bible includes only the scripture which that religion finds relevant to their own Christian values, so if it's in your bible then clearly your church wants you to believe in that stuff just as much as everything else in the bible. If it's all the word of the apparent divine creator then guess what, you have to believe in and practise the whole lot of it, you can't just pick and chose the bits that sound nice and leave the rest. It's one of those black and white things.

The Bible; Some people believe in what it says, even for some, when they haven't actually ever read the bible fully. Whilst others look at the bible as nothing more than fiction, a story book, or at best a cultural governance set by man. But whatever side of this equation you fall on, it might be in your interests to read these series on why I think the bible is just a little bit bullshit. If at any point you agree or disagree with something I have to say, I encourage you to comment on the post, or head over to our forum and discuss the matter there.

Section 1: The word of God.

The Bible would have us believe it is the word of “God”, a divine book descended from “Heaven”. But I have two main problems with this idea, the first of which being that the bible was not physically written by God, nor did it magically fall from heaven. Instead as we all should know, the bible was physically written by mere mortals, both men AND women. Now you can claim some divine entity came down from heaven and told them what to write all you like (I call a voice only you can hear telling you what to do a symptom of Schizophrenia nor divinity), but the fact remains it was actually written by human beings, not by divine entities and most certainly not by God. I find it most interesting that out of the hundreds of accounts, none of them were written by “Jesus of Nazareth” who the bible tells us is apparently simultaneously the SON of God AND God in human form. The mere lack of any accounts or scripture from “Jesus of Nazareth” is in itself most telling about the nature of the scriptures. That is to say if it was gods will to write them, surely god would have done at least some of the writing whilst in human form right?

Actually Christian testimony was originally entirely oral, and continued in this medium for roughly twenty years after the supposed death of “Jesus of Nazareth” before the “word of god” was written down as biblical scripture. These scriptures where in fact distributed secretly across early Christian regions that were under Roman rule. In actual fact Roman law at the time made it a capital offence to be Christian &/or to distribute Christian reading materials. Imagine for a moment you live in the year 25A.D. Villages are small, and cities while large compared to villages are still incredibly small compared to modern cities. There are of course no TVs, Radios, Telephones or Computers and there are no planes, trains or cars. This means that travel and communication between villages or cities is measured in days, if not weeks or months. If an Arab stranger rides into your village claiming to be from Egypt which is several months travel away, and tells of the destruction of an Egyptian city, then it's pretty likely, having nothing else to compare the claims against, that you're going to believe it.

So if you get this “secret” scripture proclaiming to be the word of a divine entity (“god”) that is filled with details about how enemy cities are crumbling, and how “god” is going to save his people from the Roman dictatorship, you'd certainly believe it. Instantly you're filled with hope for a better life, and future for your children who are probably currently slaves. Of course at the time there would be no way to verify how true the document is, or even who actually wrote it. In fact, a single document could have potentially been written by several people, as opposed to just one, and the author(s) weren't even necessarily Christian followers. In fact to this day, there is still no way of actually verifying who actually wrote any of these biblical scriptures. People have ideas about who wrote them, there are a wide range of theories, but there are actually no facts surrounding the author(s) nor their motives.

So while on one hand we have a book comprising the writings of unconfirmed authors, claiming to be the word of god, on the other hand there are far MORE biblical scriptures in existence than you will find in any bible. Each version of Christianity makes up their version of the bible from the scriptures it feels best represents their beliefs, but all leave more other then they put in. In fact there are some biblical scriptures which aren't contained in ANY bible. So we're meant to believe the people who wrote these scriptures were all influenced into writing the divine and infallible word of god, we're also meant to believe that some of those teachings should be excluded from our view? That some of them are irrelevant, or down right wrong? But wait, isn't “God” meant to be infallible? In fact, if the heads of the Christian churches honestly believed that all biblical scripture was the infallible word of god, and that god was our all knowing creator, then guess what; they would have no choice but to include each and ever biblical scripture as part of the bible. All of it, even the parts written by women.

Think about it, according to the bible, perverting the word of god is a sin, on you will go to hell for all eternity for. Guess what excluding some of the things “god” has apparently said through people in biblical scripture, in order to better show the word of god in the way you want it to be, would be called. Hrmmm. And guess what then spreading the teachings in such a perversion would be called. According to the beliefs of Christians themselves just by reading their bibles and spreading what they say as the whole word of god, all Christians are going to hell... :lol:

Links;

Wikipedia (Early Christianity)
Early Christian Writings
Religious Tolerance