Idiot magnets: the downside of the Internet.

"Have your say." Possibly the three most depressing words of any Internet article, on the websites of The Daily Mail and The Guardian, and a great many others. It's even crossed over to TV, following BBC news broadcasts. They are depressing because most people are a) completely uninformed, b) have no intention of having a reasonable debate and simply want a platform to spout unintelligible bile, and c) they are FUCKING IDIOTS. On the Mail website, you tend to get a hate-filled free-for-all, raving at, well, pretty much anything. On the Guardian site they are a little dull, but there are often dissenters who are there to simply piss people off and not discuss the article (the technical term for this is 'trolling', or so I'm told). On the BBC people just tend to send in photos of snow. They are everywhere - on your average James Delingpole post there are countless pricks all congratulating each other on sharing the same illusion of being bamboozled by every scientific institution on the planet as well as Governments the world over and, of course, the 'loony left' (which is an hilariously ironic name because, well, have you heard the main thrust of their conspiracy theory? Who are they to call anyone loony?).

There are other sights out there that are so filled with unimaginable idiocy that I suspect sometimes the comments are made by people trying to be ironic by posting shite to take the piss out of other people who are deadly serious when they post shite. If you follow me. The Daily Star, Fox News, Rebecca Black on Youtube, The Telegraph, The Huffington Post, and a host of other websites; there are so many human-shaped shits voicing useless and pointless opinions it's enough to make you give up on humanity and prowl the streets with a sawn-off shotgun blowing the mind out of anyone who admits to posting on these sites. This relatively newly-embraced obsession with what the average turd on the street thinks about events he has zero expertise on has led to a disturbing turn of events on channels like Fox News in the U.S. and Sky News here in the U.K. where the opinions of the uninformed are given as much weight as those of experts, provided those opinions reinforce the political stance of the broadcaster (in the case of Fox News, this is because the expert opinion is usually contrary to that of the channel's owner). News no longer reports on the state of the nation; it now has an agenda to influence it.

Galvanised by the willingness of viewers to believe what skews most to their personal point of view regardless of the suitability of the person saying it and the credentials of the person speaking to the contrary, in America the Republicans have declared their refusal to accept the established scientific evidence of climate change and have set about reversing any and all legislation controlling carbon emissions and attempting to strip the EPA of any power to enforce controls. They, like those drawn to the comments sections like moronic moths to a flame, willingly choose ignorance because it's how they prefer things to be.

So if you think the comments on these websites are made by nobodies who could never possibly wield any true influence, remember willfully uninformed people just like them are helping to run Governments the world over. And that may be one of the most frightening thoughts of all.

Oh, and yes, I am aware that I am criticising people who rant about bugger all in a completely disconnected way by, um, ranting about it in a completely disconnected way. I never said I was irony-free. A blog called 'Yet another nobody screeching into the void' should have given you some clue, however...

My mind is like a car crash: there are bits flying everywhere.

Something very cool happened to me the other morning. I did a good deed, and shortly after, something good happened to me. How often does that actually happen? Almost never? I got up early and went to wait at the bus stop to get a ride into work. There was one other person waiting at the stop, who I've seen a few times previously. We politely acknowledge each other, but don't speak. When the bus turned up, the other person got on ahead of me, and showed the driver a travel pass. "No good" he said, a little arrogantly. "Different company, you see. West Midlands Travel, not Arriva. Can't do it." When I've caught the bus with this person previously, the pass has been accepted without a second glance, so no wonder this response comes as such a surprise. I'm standing behind, knowing full well I only have enough spare change for myself. They're getting worried, because they need to catch a train. "What can I do?" "You gotta pay." "But I have no money." "Then you gotta get off." The driver is already looking past them and asking me where I want to go. Apprehensive, they begin to walk off the bus.

Enter: me. Imagine me shirtless if it'll help. If you know me in reality, it won't.

I hand over my change, insisting that I'll be fine and can arrange a lift or get some more cash for the next bus. Gratefully, they use my money to pay and get on. I'm probably going to be late for work, but I actually feel pretty damn good. Like Bill Murray at the end of Scrooged preaches, doing selfless things, even a little thing like I did, feels great. I start walking, trying to figure out a way to get into work, when the bus pulls up and the driver lets me on without paying.

Now, I can't blame a driver for not letting someone on if they can't pay and their pass isn't valid - Arriva is in business to make money after all, and they can't give free rides to anyone who looks at them a bit sad, but I thought the driver could have shown a little more empathy. I don't know if I shamed him or inspired him, but the result was pretty cool nonetheless, and the driver deserves credit for swallowing his pride and overcoming his earlier uncaring attitude.

The whole incident has caused my thoughts to go off at seemingly random tangents (hence the post title, which, if it sounds familiar to you, is from the first Bottom Live tour). This is completely normal for me, and I suspect for a number of you too.

It got me thinking (again) about religion. There's a video on Youtube of a debate between famed atheist Christopher Hitchens and catholic apologist Dinesh D'Souza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8. Usually, someone like Hitchens is able to demolish any defence of faith with relative ease (known as being 'Hitch-slapped'), but here I was surprised at how well D'Souza held his own. It's long (about ten minutes shy of two hours), so I doubt you'll watch it, but the points D'Souza raises that Hitchens appeared to have difficutly resolving was firstly the explanation of the existence of an inherent moral code; an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong (such as giving up a seat on the bus, or even your bus fare altogether) that cannot be adequately explained by evolution alone. Second was the point that our Universe is perfectly 'tuned' to support the evolution of humans - a quicker expansion following the Big Bang, or a slower one, and it would be impossible for life to evolve as it has done. D'Souza reflected that such a Universe must have been designed this way purposefully. Finally was the inability of evolution to explain the complexity of the cell. Evolution starts with a cell, but doesn't explain how such a thing came to be.

For me, every argument D'Souza made served to strengthen my own atheist standpoint. I have an ingrained moral code. I know that I should help people if it is in my power to do so. I know that some things are right and that some things are wrong. It is right to donate to The Red Cross, the organisation organising relief efforts in Japan, Haiti and New Zealand. It is wrong to dismiss such disasters because they occurred in countries other than the one I was born in. I do not accept that my knowledge of the proper way to act is a gift from a supernatural creator. It comes from a simple ability to put myself in someone else's shoes; to imagine the world from their viewpoint. It's such an easy thing to do, and yet so many people, theist and atheist alike, have trouble with it. I could clearly see the person on the bus this morning was distressed at the thought of being stranded with no money and a train to catch. Imagining how it would feel to be in their position, I felt compelled to help. It's that simple. It's perfectly clear when someone is distressed or unhappy, and it is also perfectly obvious that one does not enjoy being distressed or unhappy, so it stands to reason that you would instinctively offer whatever help you could. No divine intervention required - just logic.

The second point, regarding our 'perfectly tuned' Universe highlights the astonishing arrogance behind faiths of all kinds. If the Universe is perfectly suited to us, rather than considering it proof that the entire thing (of which we inhabit only the tiniest, tiniest fraction) was simply pulled out of god's arse for our benefit, perhaps us evolving like this is the obvious consquence of a Universe 'tuned' this way. Evolution dictates that life will always evolve to fill a niche and adapt to its environment. If the Universe had been 'tuned' differently, a different type of life would probably have evolved. Is this obvious only to me? Am I a brain in a jar being given opinions that are not my own by scientists? Do people really think the entirity of the endlessly incredible cosmos was created entirely for their benefit?

And the cell. Hitchens made a point while addressing something else that seems to fit this rather nicely. D'Souza referred to the evolution of the eye to back up a point about (I think) intelligent design (which, as I understand it, basically gives god the credit for evolution without a single shred of evidence other than pointing out the things science doesn't yet know). Hitchens pointed out how not so long ago catholic debaters such as D'Souza argued against evolution by citing the seeming impossibility of the evolution of the eye (even though it is actually addressed in Darwin's original Origin of Species). Now when there is genuinely no credible arguement against all the proof of evolution written in the very fabric of our DNA debaters like D'Souza use it to strengthen the religious argument. The answer now is that evolution was the big man's plan all along, and the cell and science's inability to yet explain its development is cited as proof.

The most important and the most often used answer to a question asked in science is "I don't know". Taking this initial standpoint allows for the development of the scientific process of gathering evidence to support theories. So science can't yet explain the complexity of the cell. Don't tell me that because the answer is unknown the most obvious solution is an intelligent designer. Nothing in the natural world supports this. The more we learn, the more we realise there is still to learn and the more obvious it becomes that the answers can be found. Eventually. Maybe. Even if they never are, science allows for the possibility of failure. It doesn't make it any less compelling as an argument. It's like Bill O'Reilly telling us in his superior explaining-things-to-dense-children voice that no-one can explain the tides. Ahem. That would be the gravitational pull of the moon, Bill. "OK", he replies, as if he has an unbeatable rejoinder, "so how'd the moon get there?" We're not sure Bill. We weren't there at the time. We can extrapolate a theory from our knowledge of the laws of physics and observing other moons, but we can't say for sure. Not knowing, however, is in no way proof of the existence of god as you infer. It never will be. But you'll keep using it, because there will always be things we don't know.

OK, so now I seem to have clouded utterly my original train of thought. I don't think I ever had a point. But I do know that doing nice things to help people is awesome. Maybe that's all the point I need.

“Excuse me; aren’t you all fuckin’ hired killers?” (Bill Hicks)

Like everyone, I tend to overhear parts of other people's conversations in a number of different places during the course of my daily life. Occasionally I hear something that makes me smile ("Don't give me that Star Wars bollocks - it's totally over-rated. No way is it the greatest film ever made. Not even top ten.") Some of it makes me incandescent with bottled-up rage ("I stopped watching Eastenders ages ago - too many fucking foreigners. They should call it Wogstenders.") And sometimes I fail to understand it at all.

I recently heard someone talking, and talking, and talking about the army - someone in their family is in the armed forces. In the Middle East somewhere I think. They hear first hand about how bad it is out there - the death, the underfunding, the crippling tension, the pressure. And yet they appear to believe unthinkingly that whatever our army is doing out there, there is no question about its validity, its inherent rightness. Surely there's a need to question the obvious point of contention regarding the doubt about the reasons and the need to invade and occupy land out there? I guess if someone you love is involved in it, you would want to be convinced the conditions and the risk of death was a necessary evil to help the oppressed, and not an attempt to control resources and make money.

I don't question this person's obvious love for their family, and I accept that everyone should be permitted an opinion and the freedom to express it. What I do question, a little, is the wider issue of this blanket acceptance that every single member of the armed forces is a hero and the pressure to fall in with this propaganda-like generalisation. To express the kind of sentiment shown by the great Mr. Hicks is to be guilty of betraying your country and to become outcast. Just because I don't donate to Help for Heroes, read The Sun or hang the St. Georges Cross out my bedroom window with a patriotic tear in my eye (I wonder sometimes if some of the people doing this are simply so stupid they need reminding every morning what country they live in), and just because I don't consider killing other people necessarily heroic, it doesn't mean I side with the poppy-burning uber-fucks who like to scream loudly that the husbands and sons of grieving family members are burning in hell. Clearly the poppy-burners missed the point of Remembrance Day, which is to honour the sacrifice of an entire generation to keep us free of fascism, and not to support a misguided war effort in an attempt to lead the country down a route that will likely lead to ... fascism. So the poppy-burners are wrong, but so are the people that use Remembrance Day to support our current war effort (which couldn't be more different than WW2, and less essential).

Bill? Bill was, as ever, spot on.