A few days ago, when trawling GoogleNews for articles on the Speaker's resignation, I found this hilarious article in what I think is Turkish. If you think the title's funny enough, it only gets better - Gordon Brown is apparently the Prime Abbot in the Abode of Commons, and Douglas Carswell led efforts to 'conge' the Speaker.

After about 4 months I realized taking Art was a pretty big mistake, as such, I'm mulling over ideas for a replacement for it next year, and after re-reading the Mythbusters topic I've realized how much I've missed Biology, not that I remember much of what I said in there anymore . Anyway, here's my shortlist and if anyone has any insights for me:

History: Not done it for years and do kinda miss it.
Geology: Deals with the more interesting stuff like tectonics
Graphics: Good creative substitute
Biology: I was oddly keen at it and Miss Cadney did say I had a good grip of stuff thats only covered at A-level.

So yeah, any advice?

Right, so Beeegs and Huish's Birthday's are coming up, and we start study leave... well, now. So I decided to get the two of them some presents, which actually just turned out to be a couple of books, but I think they liked them...

Anyway, before I handed these over, I decided to do some 'joke' presents. Huish, being a bit of a Trek fan like me, was the proud receiver of a cardboard tricorder that I scrawled on in Sharpie marker. Beegs gift was a bit more thoughtful. Now he said a while ago he saw some 'Used' condoms on Amazon going for £0.01. Guess what I did. Now guess again, and don't be so disgusting! What I did was sacrificed two from my own stash and filled them with glue and white acrylic respectively. Then I put the articles in a box. I then presented them to him today at break. In the library. Bailey then threw the contents of the box at me and Huish, and we promply legged it. When we came up again 2 hours later, the box was still on the table and oe of the condoms was still on the floor. Huish cited it as "the most disgusting thing [I've] ever done..."

Yup, maturity. And now I'm sodding off for the weekend to shoot things Ta ta.

If it doesn't work immediately, just wait around a bit and try again in a few minutes.

I already submitted this once, but it got totally glued over by Josh's Gay bashing thread

I walked into the library and there was the editor of the magazine 'JOHN! PERFECT TIMING!' she yells. Anyhoo, whilst helping with the magazine layout, I discovered that my bus article is going ahead, but my teen angst one isn't, because another person submitted an identical article. She did say she preferred mine though irony.png

Teenage angst.

So a new edition of the college magazine dawned, and I was blank on ideas. I decided to go for a walk, to try and jog some ideas. I awoke the following morning naked in a field in Castleton with a sheep urinating on my face. It was here, on my back, in a field, covered in lamb excrement it dawned on me;
people have a really bad image of teenagers in their head.

When not concerned with the financial crisis of the universe, the headlines are swarmed with more reports on 'youth culture' and 'yob Britian'. Specifically this all refers to hoodies and knife crime. In a constant barrage, the tabloids would have us believe that this minority of malcontents hellbent on causing murder and mayhem, is the model for every teenager in the country. The image of the hoodie is one played on as a thug, using the concealing item of clothing as a means of intimidation whilst they knife you to death and nick your wallet. I have a friend who loves wearing hoodies, she too will one day be wielding a knife. She's hoping to be a doctor. When was the last time you read of an act of selflessness by a teenager in a newspaper, let alone saw it on the front page.

The representation of teengers - like any other minority (anyone who's not a heterosexual Caucasian male aged 20-49), - is biased and unfair. The stereotype of us as violent, knife wielding, alcohol fueled, sex mad, skiving rioters, is one that sours every teenager, if it weren't for the fact the third and fourth points in that list are pretty much true, I'd be really angry. Due to this, it's now impossible to sit with a group of friends on a bench in Stockport past 5pm, without a policeman or passer-by thinking you'll be raiding the shop across the road within half an hour.

To ignore there is a problem would be futile, however. There are those out there who would have us cower at their attempts to intimidate us, if it weren't so pathetic to start with. The newspaper reports on the various kinds of vandalism and murder committed by these low-lifes is an ever escalating problem. Take for example, a lad in Bredbury, aged between 15-17, was stabbed by another youth, so that he could steal his bike. It occurs to me that these unspeakable lunatics have the mental capacity of misbehaving children, only with more knives. It therefore occurs to me, that in the case a child misbehaves, do we lavish attention on them as the newspapers do? Maybe if we put an end to tabloid reports on mindless youths, yobs would be put on the naughty step, where they belong. Preferably doused in petrol and on fire. We don't want the dears getting cold now, do we?

The issues raised by the above bags of (insert naughty words here), are so mainstream, it's beginning to get out of control. To return to my rant, allow me to issue a case study. Last summer, a girl was expelled from her school because she put black streaks in her hair. In an article reporting on the matter, The Metro invited commentary from it's readers, on such one, posted my an opinionated lady, read: "Bravo to [The Headmaster], when will these yobs learn?". As you can expect I was not too pleased. After ten minutes of me uttering the most foul language you have ever heard on a 192, I calmed slightly and contemplated, how could someone take such a biased and misinformed opinion. I was only too pleased to read two other readers who agreed with my opinion that the situation had gotten way out of hand and the punishment was, a wee bit harsh. All the same, if it weren't illegal, and thus impossible to discriminate against an age group, I'd be temped to call this bullying. Of course, that could never happen. Surely?

If it has miraculously escaped you on reading this, I'm angry. Damn angry. Why should we all have to take the blame for a hand full of mindless vandals who want to ruin everyone else's fun? For that matter, why should those of us who behave with decorum and restraint even bother? You seem to have made your minds up on us as it is. Do we really deserve all this grief? Those of us who give up our free time to go on duty as first aiders, those of us who donate blood? Those of us who are in learning so we can one day be doctors and teachers? Is this fair?! I concede that there are those who would make the rest of our lives a misery, but next time, don't give us the dirty look for it.

So far, the pro gay side have said that gay marriage is a civil right. Huh. Marriage is a civil right, yes. But marriage is heavily regulated. Homosexuals aren't the only people who cannot marry the person of their choosing. For example, in around half of all American states, you cannot marry a first cousin. In most countries around the world, you cannot marry a close relative. In most western countries (and others) marrying more than one person is illegal. Some states and countries ban marriage where one partner has an STI. So gays aren't the only people to not be allowed to marry the person of their choosing. I'm not saying that they're equal to them, just pointing out the restrictions.

“Throughout history, even those civilizations which were more accepting of homosexual relationships did not have a gay "marriage" concept-certainly nothing approaching the equivalence of man/woman marriages in their society. The idea of gay "marriage" is entirely a modern concept.”

Of course, infertile couples can marry, and the pro gay side love to point this out constantly. So, how do they suggest we find out who is infertile and who is not? Asking? Most people who are infertile do not actually know it, plus fertility tests are too expensive (plus the manpower to distribute them, petrol etc) to mandate. Also, infertility may be spontaneously resolved, may appear later in life, or could be cured. It is not necessarily permanent. So infertility in all but the most obvious cases, such as with blood relatives, is left alone.

And elderly couples? Men remain fertile even in old age. What would be the “cut-off” age? Randomly choosing a number fails. Women experience the menopause at different times in life, while one woman may go through it at fifty, another may have it at forty five or sixty. There is no definitive number. Plus elderly women can still conceive with medical help - the oldest woman to give birth was in her eighties, if I recall correctly. So outlawing elderly couples marrying (rare as it is - it wouldn't be worth the outrage) would result in fertile men unable to find a wife to marry. Fail. Plus couples marrying after the age of say, seventy, is extremely rare. The pro gay side, now clutching at straws, will state that couples intending on not having children are still able to marry. The argument is getting more and more ridiculous. Do we have mind reading technology? No? Then how the heck are we supposed to know? Ask? Their opinions may change either way during the marriage!

So, marriage laws ensure, though imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who get the benefits of marriage are the ones who will bear children.

Cool. And so, to state just some of the benefits that a married couple will receive, tax wise:

A blanket exemption from inheritance tax.

No capital gains tax on transfers of chargeable assets.

Properties in joint names

Using unused tax allowances.

And of course, hospital visitation rights, receiving property after the death of one member in the marriage, etc.

These are just some of the numerous benefits that married couples receive, all of which are costly to the state and other individuals. This is where the pro-gay side like to say that gay marriage only affects the individuals involved. Wrong. It has implications on every citizen, not least because of these costly benefits outlined above. So why do married couples get these anyway? Marriage, remember, is not a secular institution - it's the secular acknowledgment of a religious institution. So why would secular society feel the need to acknowledge marriage at all?

Because, traditionally, families were one husband - he worked and brought in the money for the household. The wife stayed at home and looked after the children. As nearly all financial benefits were tied to employment (no dole in those days, at least not to the extent that we have now) which meant that primarily, they were tied to the husband in effect - then how to protect the wife and children? Simple. Give them the rights that we have now, the majority of which were created for this purpose, so that they wouldn't be automatically screwed in the event of the death of the husband, as that would result in the financial benefits going with him. And that was the traditional definition of the family. Not going into a discussion as to whether it was right, wrong, sexist, or whatever. But that was how it was, and in nearly every society on the planet, that was how it was and still is. The fact is that children are a compelling state interest, and raising them within the traditional family model insures that they will become productive members of society.

Roll on the 21st century. Now the pro-gay side just love to point out that, “Oh, but that definition doesn't apply as much as it used to, so you should accept us non-traditional marriages,” They're right. It doesn't apply as much as it used to, but it still does apply. And they're wrong. They cannot have it both ways by saying “Since the definition doesn't apply, you should accept us,” and then doing a 180 and demanding that they need those rights which were created for people entirely dependant on the traditional family model/unit in the first place! Anyone can see that that automatically fails. Quite frankly, there is a stronger argument for the cutting back of the benefits of marriage altogether than there is for gay marriage.

So if gays are not going to fit the definition of this, then what is the point of gay marriage?

So as you can see here, the only benefits of marriage which gays are restricted from are the ones that are costly to both the state and society.

If we accept that heterosexual marriage serves a purpose, and that purpose is to create children, hence why they receive the benefits, then what is the purpose that gay couples serve that heterosexual couples don't that makes them eligible for marriage? And here is where the pro-gay side fails miserably. They cannot answer that question. I'll repeat it: Homosexual marriage do not serve the state interest of creating more citizens, so what societal purpose is it that homosexuals serve that makes them eligible for this?

The pro gay side will shout, “Adoption!” They'd like you to think that the gays will rescue every single child from the states care. Well. Adoption statistics for England:

OK. Of all the children in care in 2008, 12% (7,070) were in care. Now, let's use the oft-quoted by the pro-gay side's statistic of 10% of the population as homosexual/lesbian. For Britain, this is 6,100,000 people. Pair them up (rough estimate, but you will see the point) 3,050,000 people. 7,070 children to adopt. If they were all adopted, the vast, vast majority of gays would not get a look-in childwise. Not worth legalising it soley on that basis. Plus civil partnerships have been legal in Britain since 2005. Have we seen a massive reduction in children in care? NO. Once again, the pro gay side fail. Remove the 3,200 children that were adopted by straight couples and it fails even more! Not enough same-sex couples have a family arrangement that fits the pattern for societal protection according to the traditional justification.

Sources: http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml

So essentially, the answer is - Gay couples do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless there is another state interest that they serve that heterosexuals do not. And on that note, it is on the burden of the pro-gay side to come up with. Which so far, they have failed to do. They've shouted for ages over why they want it - but not a single word on what it can do for society as a whole.

I walked into the library and there was the editor of the magazine 'JOHN! PERFECT TIMING!' she yells. Anyhoo, whilst helping with the magazine layout, I discovered that my bus article is going ahead, but my teen angst one isn't, because another person submitted an identical article. She did say she preferred mine though

Teenage angst.

So a new edition of the college magazine dawned, and I was blank on ideas. I decided to go for a walk, to try and jog some ideas. I awoke the following morning naked in a field in Castleton with a sheep urinating on my face. It was here, on my back, in a field, covered in lamb excrement it dawned on me;
people have a really bad image of teenagers in their head.

When not concerned with the financial crisis of the universe, the headlines are swarmed with more reports on 'youth culture' and 'yob Britian'. Specifically this all refers to hoodies and knife crime. In a constant barrage, the tabloids would have us believe that this minority of malcontents hellbent on causing murder and mayhem, is the model for every teenager in the country. The image of the hoodie is one played on as a thug, using the concealing item of clothing as a means of intimidation whilst they knife you to death and nick your wallet. I have a friend who loves wearing hoodies, she too will one day be wielding a knife. She's hoping to be a doctor. When was the last time you read of an act of selflessness by a teenager in a newspaper, let alone saw it on the front page.

The representation of teengers - like any other minority (anyone who's not a heterosexual Caucasian male aged 20-49), - is biased and unfair. The stereotype of us as violent, knife wielding, alcohol fueled, sex mad, skiving rioters, is one that sours every teenager, if it weren't for the fact the third and fourth points in that list are pretty much true, I'd be really angry. Due to this, it's now impossible to sit with a group of friends on a bench in Stockport past 5pm, without a policeman or passer-by thinking you'll be raiding the shop across the road within half an hour.

To ignore there is a problem would be futile, however. There are those out there who would have us cower at their attempts to intimidate us, if it weren't so pathetic to start with. The newspaper reports on the various kinds of vandalism and murder committed by these low-lifes is an ever escalating problem. Take for example, a lad in Bredbury, aged between 15-17, was stabbed by another youth, so that he could steal his bike. It occurs to me that these unspeakable lunatics have the mental capacity of misbehaving children, only with more knives. It therefore occurs to me, that in the case a child misbehaves, do we lavish attention on them as the newspapers do? Maybe if we put an end to tabloid reports on mindless youths, yobs would be put on the naughty step, where they belong. Preferably doused in petrol and on fire. We don't want the dears getting cold now, do we?

The issues raised by the above bags of (insert naughty words here), are so mainstream, it's beginning to get out of control. To return to my rant, allow me to issue a case study. Last summer, a girl was expelled from her school because she put black streaks in her hair. In an article reporting on the matter, The Metro invited commentary from it's readers, on such one, posted my an opinionated lady, read: "Bravo to [The Headmaster], when will these yobs learn?". As you can expect I was not too pleased. After ten minutes of me uttering the most foul language you have ever heard on a 192, I calmed slightly and contemplated, how could someone take such a biased and misinformed opinion. I was only too pleased to read two other readers who agreed with my opinion that the situation had gotten way out of hand and the punishment was, a wee bit harsh. All the same, if it weren't illegal, and thus impossible to discriminate against an age group, I'd be temped to call this bullying. Of course, that could never happen. Surely?

If it has miraculously escaped you on reading this, I'm angry. Damn angry. Why should we all have to take the blame for a hand full of mindless vandals who want to ruin everyone else's fun? For that matter, why should those of us who behave with decorum and restraint even bother? You seem to have made your minds up on us as it is. Do we really deserve all this grief? Those of us who give up our free time to go on duty as first aiders, those of us who donate blood? Those of us who are in learning so we can one day be doctors and teachers? Is this fair?! I concede that there are those who would make the rest of our lives a misery, but next time, don't give us the dirty look for it.

That is all.