In part for I explore the nature of Jesus in relation to the Jewish faith and how it stacks up historically. Oh and I must apologise for the lateness of this entry.

Section 4: A Jewish God

You know Jerusalem, being the holey city of “god” isn't named that way by accident. In fact at the time Jesus was born Judaism was widely practised in the general region, and weirdly enough worships the same god as other Christian religions. Fact of the matter is the early factions of Judaism are the source of all modern Christianity, including Catholicism and Islam, so in actual fact all Christians worship a Jewish god. In the first 6 decades of the first century CE, Judaism was actually comprised of roughly 24 competing factions, one of which being the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus of Nazareth in English). It is interesting to note that the Synoptic gospels and Gospel of John mention that the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) very closely matched those of a rabbi named Hillel who lived in the second half of the 1st century BCE, generations BEFORE Yeshua's (Jesus) birth! On a quick side note, they also interestingly continue by stating that Yeshua (Jesus) was charged with what we today would called “aggravated assault” against merchants in the temple, which was considered treason or insurrection by the Roman forces. Both Gospels give that as the reason why Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified and not the outlandish jealousy and insecurity by the king, stated in most modern Christian bibles.

But back to the origins of Christianity in Judaism; in 70 CE the Roman army attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. This devastating blow disrupted Jewish life and caused two new movements to emerge, that of the rabbinical Judaism which was centered in local synagogues, and the early Christian movement. Some of Yeshua's (Jesus') followers, and some who although never meeting Yeshua were inspired by his teachings, settled in Jerusalem. Others spread across what was the then known world, but all of whom, come even within the same city, taught very different messages and held vastly different views on who Jesus was and what he did. So there you go, if you're a christian, you're actually a Jew, because you worship a Jewish god. And the teachings of Jesus were both inline with those already established at the time AND distorted by his followers. Just another reason the bible is just a little bit bullshit...

Russian politician Kirsan Ilyumzhinov claimed on April 26ths edition of a popular russian Tv show that he had been abducted by aliens in 1997. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has been the serving president of Kalmykia for the past 17 years. Without any further proof, the interview has sparked concern in Russian parliament with Russian MP Andre Lebedev calling on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to conduct an inquiry into the claims with fears Kirsan Ilyumzhinov may have given away "state secrets" to his alien abductors.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov claimed in his Channel One interview that he was falling asleep when he heard someone call him from the balcony. Upon investigating he supposedly found a "spaceship" which was a "half-transparent half tube". Somehow (he didn't explain how) Kirsan claims to have then entered the "spaceship" where he was greeted by "human-like creatures in yellow spacesuits". According to the eccentric politician the aliens then gave him a tour of their spaceship. When asked about communicating with them Kirsan stated "I am often asked which language I used to talk to them. Perhaps, it was on a level of the exchange of ideas".

On a personal note, while I certainly believe in life on other planets. And could be persuaded to believe in extra-terrestrial life visiting our planet, I find Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's claims completely laughable. It is interesting that this supposed event took place whilst under his own admission he was falling asleep. I think it is far more likely that Mr Ilyumzhinov dreamed the whole event and none of it actually took place. I find it both highly amusing and concerning that Andre Lebedev is worried about aliens gaining state secrets without any actual proof beyond his own word, that aliens ever visited Mr Ilyumzhinov.

Links;

News.com.au
The Sun

Part 3: Multiple Versions

As I covered back in Part 1, there exists multiple versions of the bible, and multiple interpretations of “gods word”. Even if you believe in God, you have to concede that it's impossible they're all right. For example if I say “If you're feeling sad, go jump in a lake” there a many many different interpretations that can be had on what I meant. Some people might think I meant to literally jump in the lake, then get out again, whilst others would think I mean they should commit suicide, whilst against others might thing I meant it as a turn of phrase meaning they should go away if they're feeling sad, and still there are other interpretations which I won't list here. The point is, I didn't mean all of these interpretations, I meant only 1 of them.

It seems to me that if “God” were the true “creator” then there wouldn't be all these different interpretations, I mean surely a being whom is apparently able to creature man kind with a simple point of it's finger is able to be clear enough in communication to get out the true meaning of what they have to say. I find the mere fact the bible is an interpretation cause for why it's a little bit bullshit, because lets say the text is really the world of god, the moment a human comes and “interprets” that text, and thus changes words around (potentially changing whole meanings of sentences) it ceases to be the word of god and becomes just another human written bunch of non-sense.

So the mere fact there are multiple versions, each interpreting the supposed word of god in their own way. But it's worse then just that, they each include only the scriptures and teachings they agree with interpreting only THOSE scriptures and teachings into the bible and leaving out the bits they don't agree. Again, if it's the word of god, then it's all the word of god and should all be included. It doesn't matter if bits repeat or if some things greatly differ from the general teachings, isn't that for each person who “experiences the word of god” to decide? It seems to me, anyone who is really seeking the true path to “god” and what “god” is on about, should learn ancient Latin, Greek Hebrew and Aramaic so they can themselves properly read the actual scriptures. It seems to me that if there is any truth to the bible it should be distributed including ALL of the scriptures, written in their entire original form, including original language, completely free from human interpretation. Anything less than that is just a little bit bullshit...

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.

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.

Toward the end of 2009 and at the very beginning of 2010 I blogged about a growing trend of internet based advertising companies to invade out privacy in increasingly disturbing ways. I spoke about how Microsoft has teamed up with Facebook and Twitter to deliver automatic up-dates to the social web about what games, music and movies you were playing/watching, all of which information, used for profit by advertising companies like Facebook. It was at that time I predicted the next step in the line would be television, reporting back on the shows we watch, when and for how long, which would give invaluable information about our personalities, the make up and running of our households, our schedules, how much free time we have and so forth.

Guess what, I was right. Introducing the worlds first Android based television (Google TV) by Swedish firm "People of Lava". The television dubbed the "Scandinavia" is available in 42" 47" and 50" models, with both Ethernet and USB ports for connecting the TV to the internet and ships with a wireless keyboard and mouse. It plays TV like a normal TV, but it also has support for the millions of paid & free Android apps available, including an exclusive set of paid & free apps available only via the "People of Lava" web store. It ships standard with apps for YouTube, Google Maps, Email, the google browser (Chrome) and FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!

Now you can automatically stream directly into your Facebook or Twitter feed what you're doing on your TV, be it internet based, or TV watching. I told you it would happen, and it has. Just another action in your daily life that the big names in ads can take a peak at, giving a better more well rounded view of who you individually are. Some of you might remember I made several other predictions about the steps after Television in this invasion of privacy, perhaps now would be a good time to look back at those posts, don't you think?

Links;

People of Lava website
Scandinavia Google TV

Stephen Conroys great internet filter is clouted as the only of it's kind in the western world, and whilst that very well may be true (I'd like to hear from someone who knows), Australia isn't by any means the only country in the western world talking about censoring the internet. In fact, it seems we're a little late to the table with the U.S.A and Britain already censoring.

As free press reports, the fight for net neutrality is underway in the U.S.A with public figures on both sides of the debate. Interestingly however unlike in Australia where it is the government leading the charge on censorship through an ISP level filter, in the U.S.A it's the ISPs themselves who are leading the charge, with LIVE monitoring and blocking of undesirable content. That's right, for Americans their ISP is able to have a real live person look through your personal messages (including Instant Messaging and email), look at any websites you own &/or run, the people you communicate with, etc and determine whether action should be taken.

According to evidence given at the Federal Communications Commission by Michele Combs, American ISPs have been speed throttling and blocking content of political &/or social nature which the ISP itself doesn't approve of. For Americans there is no spin that it's "for the children" like it is here in Australia. There are no delusions about making a safer internet being propagated, nope it's just flat out social control and censorship by corporations held in broad daylight.

For the British it's worse, as ISPs have willingly teamed up with the Government to invade privacy and provide censorship. Calling no line ISPs will log every website, email, download and upload you make in a named account which is then passed to government. The ISPs are happy, they uses the data to better send you advertising, both through the browser and through email. In fact Britain has one of the highest rates of spam on the planet, and it's all down to this ISP level snooping.

The argument for a lot of people against the Australian filter seems to be that in other developed countries that filter internet, it is a voluntary system on behalf of the ISPs, but the fact is, in countries like the U.S.A and Britain these voluntary actions are being taken up by all the major ISPs in the market, giving the same blanket effect to the community that our Australian filter is meant to achieve through being mandatory. It seems in fact that ISPs and their corporate partners see the benefits to their organisation of such controls and censorship.

Imagine a world where no corporate entity, no government, no military, no public figure ever had to worry about a scandal or cover up story again? A world where if something, be it a download, a news article, a blog, a fan page on a social networking site, a video and any other material, was placed on the internet which exposed wrongful actions of a corporate entity, government, military or other public figure they could simply and explicitly block the content from being seen by anyone.

A world where the richest, most influential political parties are able to block out from national view, what opposing political parties have to say. A world where websites such as wiki-leaks can be blocked from view at an ISP level across the countries for which such websites are trying to expose wrong doings. A world where the giants of business can simply block out their competition, instead of having to beat them in the market place. That is the world we are fast moving toward. The days of freedom of speech and zero censorship on the internet are coming to an end.

So here is my prediction, one of two things will happen, either we will continue into this world of censorship, continuing to rely on and connect increasingly more of our lives to the internet, resulting in an incredibly ill informed, fascistly controlled community, bound into bondage and slavery to corporate brainwashing. OR, we as a people will decide that censorship and invasion of privacy is to high a price to pay for the "convenience" and "improvements in our lives" the internet has provided, and thus there will be a mass disconnect. Both of these options have their pros and their cons, so we as individuals, families and neighbourhoods need to decide which option best suits us.

I'd like to discuss a variation of perception with you; Interpretation. The way we interpret the world around us dictates how we interact with it, and the experience we will have. But I'm sure you already knew that. What you may not have known however is that individual interpretation applies to everything we personally come in contact with. Lets take for example reading text. The way you interpret what I write in this blog may differ quite dramatically from how I intended it to be interpreted. But to apply a good example we'll use a simple sentence.

Lets take the sentence "The quick brown dog jumped over the log". Every non conjunctive word (ie. "the" in this case) in that sentence is open fully to interpretation. Your idea if constitutes "quick", "jumped" and "over" will most likely differ from mine. As will your interpretation of what sort of dog it would be and the size, type and description of the log. In this way there are an endless number of combinations in which to interpret that sentence. Lets for this example focus on the word jump from that sentence. A jump to one person might mean that the dog only just clears the log, to another person it could mean the dog almost just walks over the log, to another person the dog could comfortably clear the log and yet again to someone else it could mean the dog was quite high in the air indeed. The variations of this one word alone are quick numerous, having not listed them all here; but only a select few.

In this same way we interpret everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste, entirely in an individual way, with endless combinations on how to interpret the event. Our memories of prior experiences play heavily on our interpretation of things, but are not in any way the only ruling factor. Our personality, current mood, the terms of the social situation we are in at the time, the context of the event, the environment we're in all play heavily amongst other factors on our interpretation. For this reason, not only does our interpretation of an event end up individual to us, but also to the moment in which it is interpreted. For it is likely, with a variation in some of the contributing factors, such as current mood, our interpretation of the same event will change.

Now lets apply this to real life situations where interpretation may have considerable effect. The legal/justice system comes first to mind for me. Take the written laws and the process of enforcing those laws through the judicial system. Each individual judge, being a living being; is subject to this same individual interpretation as everyone else. The way a judge interprets a certain law can not only vary from others in the court room, but indeed from how the law was originally intended to be interpreted. In the same way, the judges interpretation of a law is subjective to the same factors such as mood as everyone else. On top of that, the exact same influences affect what the judge views as a fair punishment. With all that in mind is it any real wonder why we have such huge variation in who is punished for what and in sentencing?

It is because of this individual interpretation that juries we formed. But the jury itself can become subject to influence of interpretation. If a half of the jury members, being vocal agree on an interpretation of an event, their vocal nature of this fact can influence the interpretation of other members of the jury. So if for example you have 3 or 4 members of a jury who feel that the defendant is guilty because of A, B & C and theses jury members are very vocal of their feelings and dominant in the group the rest of the jury members will change their interpretation to fit. Remember humans are herd animals, we instinctively slot into dominant or submissive roles when placed in a group situation. Does any of that sound like justice to you?

Another example is rental housing; through inspections. What the real estate person feels is appropriate will depend on their mood, their personality, how they feel about the tenant, etc. What passes one time, could not pass the next even though the same person from the real estate does the inspection. In fact third party interpretation can positively or negatively influence every aspect of life. Whether or not you get that job, whether or not you keep that job, all comes down to interpretation. Arguments you have with friends, family and spouses come down to interpretation. Even whether you have religious faith is a matter of interpretation.

In this way our reality is as individual as our interpretation of it. For this reason it could be argued there is a distinct absence of absolutes. That while facts exist, such as the sky most commonly looks blue through-out the day; there is a lack of absolute. That is to say the shade of blue for example is a matter of interpretation.

As the number of obese and morbidly obese persons begin to rise and the United States of America even have to create a new category called SUPER morbidly obese for those people who weigh in the vicinity of a TON (that's as heavy as a small car!) you have to wonder, does the government have a roll to play?

While we all like to think we're in charge of our on destinies, our past influences our decisions far more then we'd like to think. If for example you grew up in a household where it was junk food every night and sports weren't encouraged, then guess what you're likely to be like as an adult? Even more so, guess what you're likely to be like as a parent?

I do agree that the individual needs to make their own decisive changes in their life. Over weight and obese people need to exercise, with an active lifestyle. If you feel self conscious about exercising in public or like Sarah you have in your head that walking places is "scummy" (which of course it isn't, I walk a lot and I'm certainly not scummy) then you could always buy a treadmill or other at home exercise equipment until you feel more self confident. The families of Morbidly and super morbidly obese people; people who can't even get out of bed due to their shear weight; need to stop enabling their food habits. If you can't get out of bed then you'll eat what you're given. People need to get up and move around, they NEED to exercise, daily and develop an active lifestyle so that exercise becomes a part of every day things instead of a chore they have to schedule in separate to everything else.

But I also think government has a role to play. It is clear at this point people are NOT going to change on their own, they need a good hard kick in the right direction which is where government comes in. There are several measures governments in the western world need to take.

(1) P.E. before school for pre-school, primary school and high school students. That used to be a part of schooling in the 70s and it worked well. Governments cut it to free up money, but it was actually a very valuable tool. Not only will it mean every child exercises daily, but it means they will be able to concentrate better in school, be more confident and are far more likely to carry on the approach into adulthood.

(2) The development of more Parks and sporting fields. There are some areas where there is a distinct lack of these sorts of facilities and without them people are unable to include certain activities in their lifestyle which would aide in the weight-loss problem. Sports are a major part of combating obesity, so without a facility to hold sporting events people can't expect to be healthy for very long.

(3) Proper dietary and exercise education. For far to long people have been going on about diet. About cutting foods out and limiting calories. This is a MAJOR factor in why we have the obesity problem the western world is facing today. Our bodies have evolved in a way that requires us to move around and use energy. But our society has evolved in such a way that we don't really move around and use energy anymore. This is the BIGGEST systematic problem of all and the REAL cause for the obesity problem.

You can attempt to blame fast food all you like, but the fact of the matter is the average diet in the 50s contained FAR more calories and FAR more cholesterol then we consume today. Our lack of movement is the huge problem. Food isn't the enemy it has been made out to be, it's simply food. ALL food is perfectly find in MODERATION. Too much of anything even carrots will cause you problems. In this way government should educate at the primary school, high school and adult levels about the importance of MODERATION and ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

(4) Legislation making it a crime for gyms and weight loss services to give INCORRECT information on weight loss or to misrepresent the facts should be brought forward. It should be a crime for a weight loss service to continue the lie that it's all about diet and you need to cut out foods and calories.

(5) Cooking classes should be reintroduced to schools. One of the biggest reasons fast food has become so popular is people have lost the skill of home cooking. If we teach it to our children in a proper way they are more likely to make good food choices.

(6) Amendments to the child protection laws to include obesity. Children can only become obese through ineffective and neglectful parenting. If you are teaching your child the correct eating and exercise habits then there is no possible way you child can become obese.

(7) Legislating more strongly about the advertising of food. NO FOOD products of ANY kind should be advertised during children's television viewing times for example. Children shouldn't be in the drivers seat, that's the parents job, therefore children shouldn't be advertised to.

(8) Parenting classes, perhaps mandatory, for people with new babies. These classes would address general issues like diet and exercise, conflict negotiation, basic first aide, child development, looking at things through your kids eyes on their level and ideas about games that can be played with your child at different stages of development.

(9) The banning of gastric bypass surgery. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long run and is bound to have some undesirable long term side effects.

Have you ever noticed that everything in our increasingly overly capitalist society can be assigned a monetary value? If a fall over in the street and break my ankle I can sue the council for money. If at work I lose a finger I can sue for money. In fact there is actually a list which the courts go by stating how much you can get for different injuries.

We buy and sell other animals, assigning them a dollar value; when lets face it they're actually another intelligent (much more so then most of us give credit for) sentential being. Heck we even assign our own lives a dollar value through life insurance and funeral insurance. It seems nothing is without a dollar value these days, think about it.

But how can you assign dollar values to some of this stuff. I watched an ad on TV for funeral insurance that said if your "loved one" dies in an accident you'll get $45,000 extra to "ease your pain and suffering". Yep, even your pain and suffering has a dollar value now days. But lets be honest, if you just lost you partner, the mother or father of your kids, they're dead, gone forever. Is any amount of money, let alone $45,000 going to ease your "pain and suffering"? It certainly wouldn't mine.

If Sarah died I can tell you no amount of money is going to make that good with me, nor should it be able to. Sure with Life Insurance the money helps you survive, but lets be honest here...if you have kids and a mortgage even half a million dollars isn't going to last you to long. No matter what, if you lose the bread winner in your family, your lifestyle is going to change. You will eventually need to go out and work, the amount of life insurance you receive only dictates how long you can delay it. It certainly doesn't ease the pain of losing your "loved one"!

So why do we do it? Why as rational but emotional beings do we attempt to assign a dollar value to everything in our world? And more importantly how do we expect that our children will grow to have good morals and values, as well as being emotionally well adjusted if they live in a world were everything is defined by how much money it's worth? What do we think happens to our attachments to each other, our attachments to the environment, our self value and emotional state if we have money attached to everyone? Together, we as a community design our own society, so we need to start asking these questions of ourselves before it's to late. Remember, extremism, regardless of it's reference is always a bad thing.

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

It's a relevant question; what happened to horror films? Once upon a time, good nature slashers with oldly little blood and psychological thrillers filled out screens. It was the age of classics, the age of masterpieces, when horror was how it should be. Sure they weren't always realistic, but that was part of their charm. Part of what made them greats; that separation from reality which reminded you it was just a film.

Cinema was created for escapism, a means for the common person to take an hour or two out of their lives and escape to somewhere else. For horror, this was a change to get a good, fun scare and have a giggle about it after the movie. Sadly, cinema seems to have lost it's way. The ideals which addicted us to film in the first place are lost or waining, and this is none more truthful than with horror.

Today's "horror" films have removed the safety net. They have chosen not only to turn their films more realistic but to ablitterate the classics as well. Gone are the cinematic greats, the super killers. Originals like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ruined. Turned from horror to snuff.

And that is all horror has become; snuff. Filled with torture, gore and rape. The viewer is placed in the thick of it, close up, unable to turn away, unable to disassociate it from reality. Gone is the laughter from viewers when the movie ends, replaced by a sickening feeling and slight guilt, like perhaps you shouldn't have just witnessed that.

True horror, as the past has proven does not require gore. It should have a healthy balance of comedy, suspense and death. But it seems the new generation of horror film makers have failed to learn the principals of a good horror flick. Borrowing a classic title and a character may be a guaranteed way to generate some box office dollars, but turning it into these monstrosities only serves to annoy and frustrate people.

It is almost as if, somewhere in Hollywood 2 bets were placed, one for who could make the most horrific film and another for who could screw up a classic the most. Irreparable damage is being done to people by watching this new breed of horror. Their brains are literally being physically damaged! Will it be that at some point, someone will be able to sue the writers, directors, produces and studios behind these films for the brain damage they've caused? Will these films one day serve as reason enough to get someone off murder?

We need to remind ourselves what the purpose of cinema is, to escape reality. It is not, and should never be, to watch mindlessly as a freak realistically kills people in the most horrific ways imaginable. Horror has become sick, ill and twisted. A perverted version of the glory it once held. For what the slasher film did to revive the ailing horror genre, the staged snuff is reversing. All in the name of a quick buck, but I ask you, if horror dies, where will the next quick buck come from?

The consumption of goods and services, even when they are unneeded and sometimes even completely useless to us has steadily increased since the 1940s. As media has encroached ever more into our daily lives, so forth has advertising. The first major revolution in advertising came with the introduction of Television.

Suddenly with a television or a "TV", advertisers found a direct route into our living rooms. By linking their ads to popular TV shows or personalities, advertisers caught us while we had those warm fuzzy feelings associated with something we like. In doing so, we then associated their products and brands with those same warm fuzzy feelings. And so was born the age of the consumer, and we were set on a path which would have implications for social structure, mental health and even the environment.

With this new found power to creep into our homes, advertisers managed to con us into some pretty dodgy deals over the years. But as the years have moved on from the introduction of television, so has legislation and indeed the consumer. When advertising first appeared on TV, merely being associated with a program or personality was enough to send thousands running for the nearest stockist. As immunity to this approach grew, advertisers changed tactics, instead listing on the neat things the product can do or how great it will taste. We were shown fake images and told things which boarder on fraud. Again, the consumer changed, and so did the advertisers tactic.

Today, we find ads which instead of insisting a product is brilliant, we're simply told it will make us "cool", more popular or happier. These claims again are of course untrue and it is again only a matter of time before the consumer becomes impartial to such advertising campaigns and things have to change once more. But no matter how these ads are delivered, the core message is always there, and has been since the word go. It is the core message which ultimately drives consumerism; that being one needs all this "stuff" to be happy. That your life will somehow go unfulfilled without these products, and you will struggle to ever find happiness. Indeed we know this to be a complete and utter lie, and yet still the mass population fall for it.

In sheep like behavior, the mass population simply follow directions and purchase what they're told to. But indeed this is having the opposite effect than had been intended. There is much evidence to show consumerism actually decreases fulfillment and happiness, for it is simply an incarnation of materialism. Through consumerism we are fostering an "I" society; that is to say, a society focused inwardless in selfish need to make their own pile of "stuff" larger. We have a society which has over complicated itself in the aid of gathering said "stuff". Think about it, we go to work daily, to earn enough money to buy the never ending conveyor belt of "new stuff". We do this without thought or wonder, indeed like a trained monkey we feel happy about doing it.

The costs of which are our sanity and the environment we live in. For the many of us incapable of buying the "coolest" new toy, we feel less of a person, incomplete, after all that is the message the advertisers would have us believe. These feelings can lead to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, even obsessive compulsive behavior. We are bombarded to buy ever more "stuff", to the point that obesity has hit epidemic proportions. It is strange to think, but the very thing that keeps capitalist economies running could, through over indulgence, break the economy all together.

But perhaps before that even occurs, our environment is at the brink of collapse through pollution caused by consumerism. Our waste has caused the environment to wither and die. The only solution for which is to cease our consumer behavior, and removed the products from which, from our society. But, human behavior what it is, I can hardly see that happening. Greed runs rampant in this modern capitalist world. If you are what you buy, then truly, what are you?

--edit--
Part 2 in this series will appear on Friday the 21st of August 2009. I apologise for any confusion

There has been much discussion on whether amalgam fillings are safe or not due to their mercury content. The fear is that the fillings which contains about 45 to 54 percent mercury are poisonous, causing all manner of medical problems; and this fear is causing Americans to flood into dentists to have them removed.

Many people, even some dentists themselves question why amalgam fillings are still used, as such a wide variety of other materials to use, but for many people it comes down to price. Amalgam fillings are cheaper and quicker than other composite dental materials. The American Dental Association (ADA) insist that amalgam fillings are safe, and pose no health risk as elemental mercury is used.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have also offered a report which references anecdotal evidence (from dentists) to state as a matter of scientific fact that amalgam fillings are not harmful. But the question is, with this claim resting on anecdotal evidence alone, where is the science? When tested dentists who work with amalgam fillings are found to have raised levels of mercury in their blood/body, but this is not thought to be at the levels of toxicity.

There is however a difference between handling the stuff for a few moments and having it installed into ones mouth. Proponents of amalgam fillings site that while the fillings do release a small amount of vapor it is not harmful when swallowed. But those on the other side of the argument site how easily element mercury is able to convert into methylmercury under conditions inside the mouth. Methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance, and while there is much anecdotal evidence from dentists that the fillings are safe, there is also a similar amount of anecdotal evidence from patients who have suffered illness since having amalgam fillings.

It seems we have a situation here where a health organisation is putting their bottom line, before the science and before patient health. Amalgam fillings may, or may not be safe as anywhere in medicine we find anecdotal evidence that tell of illness after treatment. The problem with anecdotal evidence is it is often misguided, and unrelated. People go to the doctor and receive medicine and become ill, failing to take into account something they have done earlier, or later in the day.

Anecdotal evidence in science is not to be relied on and it is amazing to me that organisations as highly respected as the American Dental Association and the Federal Drug Administration would rely entirely there on. The bottom line is, where is the science? Where are the tests, the short and long term studies? There is no scientific research here to definitively say, yes these are or are not safe. Until such a time as actual scientific research has been carried out and we can say conclusively that they are or are not safe, I personally would suggest opting for the more expensive composite fillings if you are able.

We need tests done on mercury levels found in dental patients with amalgam fillings, who have had them fitted over the short, medium and long term. We also need to see tests done which monitor what health affects might occur from exposure to small levels of mercury. A study should also be done on the affects of amalgam fillings in pregnant women, on the development of the fetus. Indeed there are many more things which need to be tested, and we should not constrain the testing solely to physical illness; as mercury is known to affect mental health (thus the expression mad hatter). The health and well being of the community should come far beyond the bottom line, yet sadly in a capitalist society it does not.

As we take on greater amounts of technology into our everyday lives, are we losing our ability to interact socially? With a vast number of people globally having access to the internet and the never ending flood of new mobile phones, it seems an almost obvious question to ask. With their billions of users world wide, are social networking sites, designed to bring people together; having the opposite effect on social interaction?

For generation Y, the first generation to grow up with these kinds of technologies automatically around them; this is certainly seeming the case. We have a generation who have not had the fortune to have grown up learning physical social interaction, and as a result we are seeing not only people incapable of physical social interaction, but criminally anti-social behaviors as well.

That isn't to say that all Gen Y's are displaying these traits, but the numbers are certainly going up. I remember a time when children, teenagers and adults alike, knew that destruction of public property was a boundary not to cross. Knew that you should keep your hands to yourself and not harm anyone else, at least not without a really good reason. In todays' world, destruction of public property and Grievous Body Harm (GBH) are both done "for kicks".

Similarly there are suddenly people without any mental defect incapable of understanding how to interact appropriately with others. These people make up the majority of anti-social traits in modern times. Of these people the vast majority have problems even speaking to another person face to face, reduced to a tongue tied mess. These are people who are suffering; can you imagine not being able to walk into a shop and ask for help? Or the loneliness associated with such a condition.

But is it really their fault? Or is it down to technology? As humans, we learn to socialise through experience. Children play freely without care of consequence and speak their minds. It is from this that we learn social boundaries and thus become socially capable and confident. But as technology powers forward children are losing their chances for physical interaction experience. Lets take video games for example.

Before video games where invented, children used their imaginations more to play. This lead to adults who were capable of effective problem solving skills, and of course better social interaction skills, as children played outside with friends. Enter video games, and while they reduced the need for imagination, they were and remain more fun playing with friends. Up until recently however, to play a video game with a friend, they had to physically be in the room with you, this still gave one the opportunity to interact socially, and thus learn much needed skills. With the utilisation of the internet for gaming however, the need for physical presence for multi-player gaming has vanished and it's social interaction along with it.

Similarly social networking, with it's massive databases of users have done away with the simplest of social interactions. We now have a generation who have friends that they have never met and probably never will. And yet a vast friendship has formed. There are people in the world where their entire friend base can be described in this manner, and those who can be described that way are growing.

What is the solution, I haven't a clue where to begin short of pulling the plug on the whole thing. But what is certain is that if the trend continues within a matter of generations that can be counted on 1 hand, the ability to interact, socially, face to face may be lost entirely. And I think THAT is a real shame, sure to bring with it, endless problems.

It is rare that I come across a modern day movie that I like, but french film À la folie... pas du tout (He loves me, he loves me not) certainly makes the cut. It is a movie that is well thought out, leaving plot holes tiny and scarce. The clever script is taken to another level both with insightful direction and divine acting on behalf of the lead roles.

À la folie... pas du tout tells the story of waitress/student Angélique whom is madly inlove with Cardiologist Loïc and plans to run off with him. Almost needless to say Loïc is married, and his wife is pregnant with their first child. Add to the mix, student doctor David whom himself has fallen for Angélique and you have a mature paletted thriller. The exploration of Angélique's erotomania indeed takes this film to another level.

Audrey Tautou plays Angélique exquisitely with her odd, but innocent look barely hinting at the world that lives inside her mind. The film is of course in french and thus subtitled, but I hope that will not put you off this masterful work. It plays in two halfs, first telling things as Angélique see's them, then once more from the perspectives of everyone else. Writer/Director Laetitia Colombani has certainly out done herself with this film, it will jerk your heart strings then send you on a white knuckle ride.

Links;

IMDB
Cinephilia

In a world where Obesity is still on the rise, could anorexia be becoming the next fad? Disturbingly I've found evidence this could well be the case. Anorexia is a condition by which the person continually views their body as fat and disgusting. By this means the individual starves him/herself dramatically dropping body fat to below dangerous levels. Indeed many persons have died from Anorexia.

I've joined Yahoo Answers which is a part of the Yahoo! network where people ask questions, and those capable of answering are able to do so for points. Those who answer the best, get voted for and earn even more points. There seem to be an alarming number of Teenage girls on the site aged between 13 and 15 who are dramatically under weight and searching for ways to lose even more weight.

It is evident from their questions that although in actual fact they are underweight, they still feel as if they are over weight and will be judged poorly if they don't lose it. This is classic Anorexic thinking, so my question is where is this coming from?

Could it be that the overwhelming number of obese people now days is simply beginning to put people off? Or could it be that with the urgent push from governments and food companies to tackle the obesity epidemic their messages are wrongly being picked up by those who are of healthy weight or below? In our rush to help the obese, have we forgotten that everyone hasn't taken to gluttony?

Flip through any magazine now days, turn on the TV, surf the internet, the message to lose weight, because you're too fat is EVERYWHERE! We are saturated with this message, it's even taught in schools! Is it any wonder then that young impressionable minds are developing Anorexia? I fear we are heading for a tidal wave of underweight, body dysmorphic persons in the near future; by which we have only thus far seen the tip of the iceberg.

Links;

Yahoo Answers