Black Friday: A celebration of greed and moral decay

Black Friday is the Friday following Thanksgiving in the United States. Regarded as the beginning of the festive shopping season it is a celebration of all that is wrong with the human race. It is the biggest shopping day of the year in the United States, with an estimated 97million Americans hitting the shops. It is a happy consumers wet dream, an occasion to look forward to for materialistic bargain hunters. The event has a manic effect on people, turning them into soulless beasts who have lost all morality.  Prices are slashed and decadent shoppers lose all self-control and inhibition, fighting manically to ensure they purchase the goods they think that they need.

This year saw reports of mindless violence from all over America. A man was reportedly stabbed over a parking space. A woman tasered another in a Philadelphia shopping centre, and one man was maced by police following an argument over a television. Further festivities included a shopper being shot and robbed in Las Vegas, and a California policeman being assaulted.

The worst thing about it is, Black Friday has reached our shores.

Asda,(owned by Wal-Mart) Amazon and Apple have spread the event to the UK, purposefully infecting the British consciousness like a whore spreading herpes around a naval base. This year British stores joined in to help them spread the word. John Lewis and Debenhams slashed their prices for one day only, enticing customers in search of Christmas Bargains. Our country, though not as manic as our American counterparts was taking over by the moral corruption of Black Friday. A man just yards away from the Queen was arrested in Windsor for shoplifting. Another man was arrested following an argument that occurred over two 60-inch televisions. Witnesses described shoppers as "locusts" and "savages" as goods were discounted by as much as 70%.

It is entrenched within our society that a decent person buys Christmas presents for those they care about. It is tradition, your responsibility and your duty to purchase products in an attempt to delight the intended recipient on the morning of the 25th. This leaves people stressed, both mentally and financially and the appeal of a bargain is understandable. What is not understandable is turning into wild animals, with no regard for each other or sense, driven simply by greed. Perhaps if they were fighting over an antidote to some tropical disease I might understand or even empathise, but even then I would expect them to think with a degree of rationality.

I am not anti-american, I love American literature,music and films. I do not bemoan the Americanization of our country as some people do. I believe that every culture has its positive and negative aspects that we can observe and learn from.  Black Friday is certainly one of the aspects of American life that I wish had stayed in America. I can only hopelessly wish that it does not become a tradition in Britain, but if my instincts are correct these wishes are futile.

BBC betray the public

After noticing that most mainstream news organisations decided to give little attention to this weekends protests, I was horrified to discover that the BBC decided not to cover the marches.

The protests had a crowd of at least 50,000 fighting against NHS cuts and in my opinion were definitely newsworthy. Whether intentionally or not, the BBC betrayed their responsibilities to the public by showing a total disregardment to the event or the proposed cuts that sparked the protests in the first place.

In fact, I believe that the BBC not covering the event was almost criminal, they rely on basically extorting money from taxpayers and a large amount of people use the organisation as their main news source.
Attempting to keep a large scale event regarding such an important issue as this discreet is certainly not what a major and supposedly run for the people, news organisation should be about.

A fair democracy relies on having informed voters, so by disregarding this issue I believe that the BBC showed they do not care about having a fair democratic society. As a government run and major news organisation this is very alarming.

Why do people fear words?

Tesco have been forced to apologise for selling a 'Psycho Killer' costume which has been deemed offensive, is that not a bit pathetic? You would have to be pychotic to be offended that easily. If, like many people do, you suffer from some form of mental illness, this Halloween outfit is not taking a swipe at your condition, if you think it is then maybe you are arrogant and self-centred, or simply one of these pedantic people who finds trivial issues like this more important than real topics such as poverty, politics or the simple fact we are a country that tends to look down on the poor rather than help them? Are any of these same people offended by the title Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece? If so they may be missing out on an excellent piece of cinema through no one else's fault but their own.

Personally I believe that the meaning of language is completely down to its context, so why do people decide that the words themselves cause harm? If Barack Obama said an expletive on daytime television there would be a mass public outrcry, wheras if he ordered a small task such as the bombing of a small nation that would dwindle in comparison, an interesting scenario to sum up societies priorities.

When you see the word f*** you read it as the word fuck, so why do bother doing that? If someone can't crack that complex code they use there then I assure you that their issues are far greater than some four-letter words.

People with kids often seem to believe that swear words  will harm their children, yet proceed to pollute the family homes with ciggarette fumes whilst filling their little brats up with almost toxic processed food washed down with fizzy drinks that make moonshine seem like some form of health drink. I'd like to tell them parents right now, if your child finds a swear word offensive, it is because you taught them to think that way.

A case of someone using societies apparant weakness for these 'curse' words to their advantage was Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. Nixon released several large official documents relating to the case with the phrase 'expletive deleted' scattered throughout, which could have been hiding anything. These documents weren't being handed to primary school pupils or a church choir! Fully grown adults, interested in the biggest presidential scandal of all time, would not, or at least should not, be offended by mere swear words ,but rather by being patronised in such a ludicrous way.

'Putin in underwear' artist flees to France

An artist who painted Russian President Vladimir Putin in women's underwear has fled to France, where it is believed he is seeking asylum.

Fearing arrest Russian artist Konstantin Altunin left Russia on Tuesday after having his work seized from an exhibition at a small museum in St Petersburg.

The painting was one of four taking by authorities, other artworks taken included a portrait of politician Vitaly Milonov, one of the creators of Russia’s controversial anti-gay laws,  depicted alongside a rainbow flag which is an international symbol of gay pride.

After authorities were alerted by a member of the public who believed the paintings were breaking the law, police armed with Kalashnikovs raided the Museum of Power on Tuesday to confiscate the artworks.

It has not yet been stated by authorities which laws the paintings break, but it is believed that the police may seek to press charges under the country’s recently passed controversial law banning the promotion of homosexuality to minors.

Vitaly Milonov, the creator of the new laws, visited the exhibition, later appearing on St Petersburg’s Echo radio station. The MP publicly dismissed the works of art as "tasteless, at the same level as a yob from a vocational college who scribbles in a toilet at a bus stop".

Defeated David Cameron loses commons vote on UK involvement in Syria

A government motion proposing that the UK takes military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons has been rejected.



The dramatic vote took place in the House of Commons last night, where the proposition was defeated by a total of 13 votes. As a western intervention in Syria seems imminent, a strong opposition from Labour and a Tory rebellion saw the government defeated 285 to 272 in its bid to involve the United Kingdom in the conflict.

The vote took place after a gruelling 8 hour debate at Westminster, which David Cameron used to make his case supporting British military involvement in Syria. Cameron agreed with the motion that: "A strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action"

During the debate the Prime Minister acknowledged concerns raised by previous conflicts, telling MPs: "I am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts... but this is not like Iraq."

However after leaving no doubt about his personal opinion on the matter, Cameron was unable to unify parliament, with the motion facing strong opposition from the Labour party and Cameron the victim of a Tory rebellion, with 30 Conservative MPs voting against their leader.

After the motion was rejected, a defeated and humiliated Cameron was forced to abandon his plan for military action, telling the House of Commons that: “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons. But I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly.”

Labour leader Ed Miliband happily expressed his relief with the outcome of the vote, stating:

"I think today the House of Commons spoke for the British people who said they didn't want a rush to war and I was determined we learned the lessons of Iraq and I'm glad we've made the Prime Minister see sense this evening.

"I think military intervention is now off the agenda for Britain and I'm afraid to say that's happened because the Prime Minister tried to go for an artificial political timetable for intervention, he tried to bypass the United Nations and I'm afraid he's got to learn the lesson Britain does not need that kind of cavalier leadership - it needs calm and measured leadership and I hope he takes that lesson out of what happened tonight and over the past few days.

Mr Miliband further added:  "It was cavalier and reckless leadership that was taking Britain potentially into war without going through the United Nations, without putting the evidence properly before the British Parliament and I think he should learn the lesson from this episode."

When asked regarding how the vote will effect relations between the United States and Britain, Ed Miliband said: "I think being and ally of the United States and having a special relationship with the United States cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants you to do."

A senior Labour MP resigned as a shadow minister prior to the vote. Jim Fitzpatrick quit his role after telling the Commons he was "opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop".

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary supported military action, but confirmed that the British military will not get involved in Syria, telling BBC's Newsnight: "I hoped we would carry the argument but we understand there is a deep well of suspicion about involvement in the Middle East."

The outcome of the vote will come as a shock and a concern to the Obama administration, which is likely to send troops to the conflict in the near future.

Concerning the result of the vote, a US military spokesman stated:

“We care about what the UK thinks. We value the parliamentary process but we're going to make the decision we need to make.”

Police have ability to block protester's Apple cameras during demonstrations

Apple has patented technology that would allow authorities to block electronic transmissions in any location they feel necessary.

Many concerns have already been raised regarding the issue, with fears that authorities could use the technology during protests to block the transmission of video or photographic evidence of their own brutality or unacceptable behaviour.

However, Apple have claimed that the technology is aimed to be used more often in cinemas, academic lectures, funerals and other venues where mobile devices should not be used. Nevertheless, they went on to further state that:

"Government operations may require complete 'blackout' conditions. The wireless transmission of sensitive information is one example of a threat to security."

Using GPS and WiFi a 'geofence' can be built, surrounding 'sensitive' locations within which an encoded signal is sent, deeming all recording functions on wireless devices useless.

Although Apple created the technology, the decision regarding how it is used will be beyond their control, with final say going to the government.

In their patent Apple further explained: "More and more people are carrying these devices in various social and professional settings. The result is that these wireless devices can often annoy, frustrate and even threaten people in sensitive areas."

Further examples given of 'sensitive' areas included religious ceremonies, theatres, concerts and meetings.

Apple's famous 1984 advertisement, aired just once, during The Super Bowl, is often regarded as one of the best adverts ever. Advertising the launch of the Apple Macintosh, their twist on Orwell's novel claimed that buying their product would help to fight a dystopia, with its release allowing people to 'see why 1984 won't be like 1984.'

Perhaps this could be regarded more fittingly, as one of the most ironic moments in television history. As it seems it is Apple's technology that is providing the government with the tools it needs to fulfil Orwell's prophecy.

Psychedelic drugs not linked to mental health problems

Using psychedelic drugs does not increase risk of developing mental illness


Research carried out by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology suggest that the use of LSD, magic mushrooms and peyote does not increase an individuals chances of developing mental health problems.

Data was analysed from 130,000 people, with 22,000 of these people stating that they had used psychedelic drugs at least once. The subjects were chosen at random from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 2001–2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

No links were found between psychedelic drug use and the development of mental health such as anxiety, psychosis and psychological distress.

In a statement released by NTNU psychologist Pål-Ørjan Johansen he said:

"Lifetime use of LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, or peyote, or past-year use of LSD, was not associated with a higher rate of mental health problems."

The study found that lifetime use of psilocybin - the active ingredient in mescaline and magic mushrooms - or past year use of LSD, were associated with reduced rates of psychological distress.  Lifetime users of LSD apparently sought less psychiatric help than their counterparts, with users receiving less health treatment and psychiatric drugs.

The study however, will more than likely receive little attention, as it fails to fit the agenda of the mainstream elite. This issue is summed up perfectly by late comedian Bill Hicks in the following link.

Positive Drug Story On The News - Bill Hicks