I’m currently rebuilding the website as the old one got totally messed up when i was playing around with things (no idea what happened).
So i thought that while it was a total clusterfuck mess of SQL, i would take the opportunity to give it a whole new life and everything.
So if you go clicking on things you might find that very strange things happen. Don’t moan, i know a lot of things are broken, i’m working on it, it takes time.
I’ve got tons of old posts and pages from three websites that i’m working through and will be gradually posting all the stuff i want to keep on here while fixing all the broken things as i go through, one post, one page, at a time.
On top of doing all that, i will, of course, be continuing to add more new content and my latest posts will always appear directly below.
Or, if you prefer, you can also follow me on Twitter and Pinterest where i put a link to all new posts.
Enjoy
Same Sex Marriage
Another post from the past that i’m re-publishing.
Enjoy…
Once again the absolute best journalists the BBC has to offer have written an article that i just can’t help but add to.
‘The people who oppose the gay marriage law’.
It seems to me that the article is nothing but the BBC pandering to homophobic bigots, because i don’t see any counter argument against any of the bigotry that is being presented. And it is bigotry. Oh sure, you can dress it up as being faithfully religious if you like, but people who hide behind an archaic ideology that has no relevance whatsoever in the 21st century in order to justify intolerance and discrimination are nothing but bigots.
Let’s look at this in a little more detail, let’s provide a little journalistic endeavour to this article and see where it leads. Because one thing’s for sure, the BBC journalists certainly did not apply any journalistic endeavour towards their article.
So basically, according to the homophobic bigots, if one of you has female on your birth certificate and the other has male on it, then marriage is ok. If they both have the same sex, then it isn’t. But just because a birth certificate states something doesn’t mean it is true. A birth certificate is simply a piece of paper issued by the political state for their own political purposes, and is not, and never has been, approved by any god for the followers of their religion to be used to judge, approve or oppress anyone.
Where, in any religion, does it state that the clergy should ask the political state to intervene on the sex judgement of those that the clergy are marrying? Because that’s what the clergy are doing when they refer to a birth certificate.
I can absolutely guarantee that all of these religions who are so opposed to same sex marriage have performed many same sex marriages without their knowing. Why? Because they have no way of knowing if the birth certificate is accurate and true. They also have no way of knowing about anyone born with an intersex condition, or if that intersex condition has been defined correctly on their birth certificate.
You can read all about intersex here. Go on, educate yourself and be a lot wiser. And the next time some ignorant, homophobic bigot tries to tell you how utterly sinful same sex marriage is, you’ll have plenty of ammunition for your debate.
Oh, if only sex and gender could be defined so easily as male or female. Nature simply isn’t like that. Depending on what scale you judge intersex on, you could be looking at up to 2% of the population with some kind of physical intersex condition. That’s a lot of people!
Sex and gender is a spectrum, not a binary objective that we all either fit this one or that one. This is a fact! And more and more science is proving this fact again and again. The only people who don’t accept this are bigots, totally ignorant, retarded bigots.
And how many transgender people have been married who have had their documents changed to reflect their new gender identity? Do any of these religions have any idea on how many trans men have been married by them to cis women and vice versa? I doubt it.
Moving along…
The other point that the wonderful incredible BBC journalists fail to look further into in a journalistic way in this whole article is the procreation aspect presented in the homophobic bigots’ arguments…
We read in part 1, this…
“Marriage is a unique kind of relationship that involves a man and a woman and their ability to create new life in the form of children,” says O’Reilly. “The church isn’t looking to impose its understanding of marriage on others, but it is looking for its understanding of marriage to be protected.”
And from part 2…
“The main reason for the state to be involved with marriage is children,” says Prof David Paton, an industrial economics lecturer at the University of Nottingham and a supporter of the Coalition for Marriage, a group arguing that traditional marriage is beneficial to society and would be undermined by a definitional change. “It seems reasonable for the state to treat the one type of relationship from which children can directly result in a different way to others, and this is the basis for marriage laws,” says Paton.
So let’s look at this a little closer…
Is this what marriage is really about? I know people who have been married for years and years and have never had children and do not want children. So why did the priest or registrar marry them and why isn’t the church or government annulling their marriage? Surely, if the religious/political argument against same sex marriage is that they can’t have children and that the sanctity of marriage should be protected for only those lucky few who can actually have children together, they should make sure that only fertile people are allowed to marry and that they should produce a child within a certain period of time else their marriage shall be null and void in the eyes of the lord and the state.
But they’re not doing that. These churches, and the political state, very clearly don’t care whatsoever as to whether two people they marry are capable of producing a child, or if they are capable whether they actually want to have a child. So why is this point of view, that marriage should be about the production of children, being used by the bigots now when it very clearly has never been the case for either church or state to insist on the production of children for a marriage to be valid?
One should also ask whether the church considers the intervention of science with IVF, allowing two people to produce a child, counts in their proper marriage thing. Because one thing is for sure, that those people could not, just like two men could not, or two women could not, produce a viable living human child without the intervention of modern science. So are these homophobic bigots calling for the annulment of marriages that use IVF to produce children? No they’re not. But it’s reasonably feasible for two women to make a baby using IVF techniques, so why can’t they be married the same as a male/female couple who had to use IVF to produce a child?
And if it is all about raising children and being a family, then why can’t two gay men who are raising a child (whether adopted or from a previous relationship or surrogate) be allowed to marry in the same way a man and a woman who have had to adopt because IVF didn’t work or for some other reason?
To sum up…
Sex and gender are quite complex topics and they should not be given over to ignorant, retarded bigots to define how they are treated by society as a whole. I’m sure that 2 or 3 thousand years ago, when we were not much more highly educated than chimpanzees, we could only manage to comprehend gender as either being male or female. It either clearly has a penis, or a vagina, and anything else is obviously the result of sorcery, and/or evil malignant spirits, and must be drowned at birth. Keep it simple for the morons. But this isn’t 2 or 3 thousand years ago and i don’t think that people who chose to follow a narrow minded, world view, that was defined in dark ages of unadulterated ignorance no better than a baboon’s, should be allowed to go around freely spouting their retarded, homophobic bigotry at all and sundry.
I did find Rupert Everett’s bit to be about the only piece in the whole thing with any level of intelligence…
Actor Rupert Everett perhaps gave the most colourful argument against, in a 2012 interview in the Guardian. “I loathe heterosexual weddings. The wedding cake, the party, the champagne, the inevitable divorce two years later. It’s just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster.”
More interesting thoughts on the topic of gender and sex to follow in the next article.
Next up is “Understanding the Complexities of Gender”
#5t4n5 #politics #government #lgbtq
Cynical Is Me
Another old blog post i wrote years ago that is still as relevant today as ever was. The Westminster actors may change but the scripted crap that comes out of mouths is just the same as it ever was.
Sitting comfortably?
Then let’s begin…
So Blunkett doesn’t like people expressing a valid opinion about politics and politicians: “David Blunkett attacks ‘cynicism’ of Russell Brand and Will Self”.
Hardly surprising that the political class don’t like having their boat rocked, now is it?
While i really don’t like the leftist drivel that spews forth from the likes of Brand and Self, i do agree with some of what they say. It is pretty much pointless voting in this country because those who get elected do not listen at all to those who elected them. They make lots of promises on their election campaigns only to renege on them as soon as they get elected. They’re far more interested in listening to lobbyists than they are their constituents, and why wouldn’t they be? When political party funding is absolutely crucial to get elected it makes complete sense to do what you’re asked by those who fund you rather than those who vote for you.
Furthermore, Blunkett seems to be stuck in this idea that what we have in the UK is a democracy.
Guess what?
It isn’t!
Our first past the post electoral system sees the vast majority of votes go straight into the bin and ignored. For example, if your constituency results are Conservatives 35%, Labour 32%, Lib Dem 23% and Others 10%; then the Conservatives will win with their measly 35% and all the rest of the votes will be totally disregarded and count for nothing whatsoever. Think about that, 65% of that ballot will go in the bin. Now how is that democratic to return a Conservative MP when 65% of those who voted didn’t want a Conservative MP in the first place?
Now let’s also consider the amount of people who didn’t vote in the above scenario. Consider that the above ballot was only a 55% turn out, then that makes the amount of people who were eligible to vote who voted for a Conservative MP to be only 19.25%. So now we have a situation whereby 80.75% of the electorate did not want a Conservative MP, yet that Conservative MP will still claim to be democratically elected representative of his constituency even though more than 4/5th of the electorate did not want them to be their MP.
And i’m not making these figures up or exaggerating them for dramatic effect. Go check the polling figures from the last general election in the UK.
No wonder that politicians don’t listen to the electorate when all they really need to get elected in this country is about 20% of the vote. They just pander to their demographic and don’t care about the rest who get no representation whatsoever.
And then they have the nerve to criticise us for not voting.
And maybe another reason people don’t vote is because they simply do not want to be ruled by 650 arrogant sociopaths/pyschopaths in Westminster. Where does Blunkett mention the idea that people just might not want to be ruled by people like him and his mates? He doesn’t mention it because he’s power-crazy and just wants as many people agreeing to his idea of how the country should be run because he’s one of the people running it.
If more people keep abstaining from voting there will come a time when the question has to be addressed on whether or not they have a quorum to continue governance in the manner that they so love. And that time, as far as i’m concerned, has passed.
It also comes down to the ethics of passing laws upon people. If you don’t vote then they have no ethical right whatsoever to pass laws upon you because you didn’t consent to their system. Yes, admittedly, they can resort to using might to enforce their laws upon you, but that’s a fundamentally different thing to having the ethical right.
What it boils down to simply is this: they have no ethical authority over anyone who doesn’t vote because, by not voting, they haven’t consented to be governed by those elected. So, of course, they’re going to bitch on about people not voting and, in some countries, pass laws to punish people who don’t vote. They want nothing more than for you to give them the ethical right to govern you through your consent.
And make no mistake about it, when you mark that ballot paper you are consenting fully and freely to that electoral process and in so doing you are consenting fully and freely to be ruled by whoever is declared the winner of that political process for as long as the term that is covered by that election.
In a modern connected country like the UK, there is no need for only 650 people making these laws any more. We have the technology to put every law to a referendum, so why don’t we do that? Why can’t we start having referendum politics where everyone in the country gets to have a say — including children because it’s their future that’s being voted away. Everyone could be given a secure internet account and any law suggested could be put onto a website, each person could then vote how they wished on every suggested law.
If you’re going to cry “We’re a democracy and everyone should vote” argument, like Blunkett and his pals seem so keen to do, then make it a real democracy. Let us all have a true vote in everything, Mr Blunkett, and you can go and retire somewhere and leave us all in peace to run our own country without you and the other 649 power-crazy, arrogant cunts telling us how to live every day of our lives.
Nuff said!
Next up is “Same Sex Marriage”
#5t4n5 #politics #government #dontvote
The Battle of Verril — Joseph R. Lallo
The 7th book of The Book of Deacon series, which essentially ends the first half of the series. Yes, 7 books are just the first half, we’ve got it all to do again to finish the series. So what was book 7 like?
Well, it was a bit of a roller coaster, and then some. A relentless, none stop, too and fro between The D’Karon and The Chosen. We’ve been informed several times that one of The Chosen isn’t going to survive this battle, so we kind of know the rest are, but it’s what’s going to be left of the world after they survive that is the question. We also know that this is only the end of the first half of the series, so obviously something of The D’Karon is also going to survive as well, but as we don’t know exactly what The D’Karon is, or are, we don’t know much on what or who is going to survive.
It’s all pretty big, epic fantasy, and while i’m not big into all the fighting stuff, i still find it really enjoyable. Well written, easy to follow, with great characters on both sides of the conflict. You can really lose yourself for a couple of months in this series.
The next book is The Adventures of Rustle and Eddy, which, although set in the same world, isn’t part of the conflict and serves as a nice palate cleanser after all those nasty battles before we dive back into the next half proper.
Also available in The Book of Deacon Anthology.
Joseph’s Page
#fantasy #josephrlallo
Meeting of the Mas — Joseph R. Lallo
Just as i was about to start The Battle of Verrel Joseph released this month’s Patreon short story. So i thought, i may as well have this as a little inbetweeny before diving back into the universe of Deacon.
I was really quite excited about getting to read a book with all 4 instances of Ma having a meeting as i can’t get enough of Ma: the more the merrier. 
My only complaint is that i wanted sooo much more of all the Mas. I really do think they deserve their very own full length novel or even a dedicated trilogy.
But it’s a good little short and a good little inbetweeny while we await the next Big Sigma novel.
So how do you get it?
Originally available to Joseph’s Patreon supporters, but now also in Sidequests.
Joseph’s Page
#scifi #josephrlallo
No More Kindle Fire
At long last Amazon have seen a bit of sense and renamed all the Kindle Fire tablets.
I am fed up with ‘people’ (i’m being polite) moaning about how crap Kindles are when what they’ve based their judgement on was a Kindle Fire. Trying to explain to these ‘people’ that a Kindle Fire is not a Kindle, that they’re completely different things, and that a Kindle Fire is not an e-reader, is like trying to explain to a 3 year old in a toy shop why they can’t play with all the toys. They stupidly bought the cheapest thing with a Kindle label on it to use as an e-reader and refuse to admit that they are the ones at fault because a little bit of reading before they purchased it would have revealed to them that a Kindle Fire is not an e-reader, it’s a tablet computer.
A little bit of research from the comfort of your arm chair would soon make anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence realise the difference.
A ‘Kindle’ is an e-reader. It does not have a back lit LED screen that eats your battery life to a matter of a few hours. A Kindle screen is e-ink and it only uses a tiny amount of power when the page turns to reset the e-ink on the screen.
A ‘Kindle’ has a higher resolution screen than a Fire giving you a much clearer print.
A ‘Kindle’ screen does not suffer from screen glare and can be read very clearly in high light situations.
A ‘Kindle’ is lighter.
A ‘Kindle’ is smaller.
A ‘Kindle’ battery life is in weeks, not hours.
So hopefully with Amazon removing the Kindle name from all of its Fire tablets we shouldn’t hear any more of this ridiculous moaning and ‘people’ calling their Fire tablets, Kindles: it’s not a Kindle, it’s a Fire.
To sum it up, if you want an e-reader, buy an e-reader. If you want a tablet, buy a tablet. Don’t buy a tablet and then start slagging off e-readers because you actually wanted an e-reader but bought the wrong thing.
#5t4n5 #thoughts
The Great Convergence — Joseph R. Lallo
The sixth book in The Book of Deacon series follows the travels of The Chosen and their getting to know each other a bit better.
Joseph has created a set of heroes, The Chosen, for this story that are everything but a cohesive unit working towards a singular goal, and, at times, this can become rather frustrating and annoying. I just wanted them to sort their shit out and get on with it, but they just keep pulling in opposite directions with their own agendas being more important than the goal the gods set for them. And the end result of my frustration and annoyance is i end up liking and admiring The Generals more than i do The Chosen.
So far this has been the strangest book of the series. Whereas The Book of Deacon was exploring how magic works within this series, this book is mostly spent with The Chosen learning to fight, both individually and together. And i’m not a big fan of lots of fighting, so i can’t say it all worked for me.
But, lots of buts, i suppose this was inevitable. You take a bunch of people, some who don’t want to be heroes and some who do, and throw them together for a goal that some don’t care about and some do, and you’re going to have chaos for a while. And this is what this book is really for: bringing together these conflicts, internal and external, of our heroes and attempting to get them resolved before the big day ahead. Will they all be resolved? Will all our heroes survive? You’ll just have to read it and find out.
One more thing about this book. The war between the Northern Alliance and Tressor has been going on for well over 100 years, continuously, and i kept on feeling that this book had a lot to say about war and the reasons we fight it:
“Peace is preferable to war. If defeat is the price, I am now willing to pay it,” the king stated solemnly.
“You claim to care for your people, yet you would sacrifice their freedom with victory so nearly at hand,” Bagu scolded.
“Their freedom was not mine to sacrifice, nor was it theirs. Their forefathers and mine gave it to the war long ago, and the war has been given to you,” said the king.
“Remember this, Your Majesty. Your continued power is an illusion for the benefit of your people. The only true power lies in the hand that wields the sword,” warned the general.
With that he returned to his lair. The defeated king sat in silence.
Food for thought there.
Also available in The Book of Deacon Anthology.
Joseph’s Page
#fantasy #josephrlallo
The Book of Deacon — Joseph R. Lallo
Although this is the fifth book in The Book of Deacon series, this is where the story truly begins.
In this book we follow the journey of a young woman, Myranda, as she gets all mixed up in the game between The Chosen and the D’Karon: it’s quite a journey.
It’s also a bit of an info dump, in that this is where we learn, through Myranda’s journey, how magic works in this world. But it’s not a tedious info dump, the info is blended seamlessly into the story and everything just flows along at a really good pace and you never get any down time.
And we also end up back at Entwell during this story and discover what became of our sweet little fairy Ayna, and also get to know a few more of the characters there: which is always good. There’s even a cute little baby dragon, and we all like dragons, especially cute little baby ones. Joseph always throws a cute little beasty thing into his stories and they do make for a lot of fun.
This was my second reading of The Book of Deacon Anthology and it’s actually better than i remember it. It really is one of the best fantasy series out there IMHO. If you like fantasy, or are fantasy curious, then this series is a great one to read.
Joseph’s Page
#fantasy #josephrlallo
The Rules of the Game — Joseph Lallo
Currently the fourth story in The Book of Deacon series.
When i first read The Book of Deacon several years ago, this short story wasn’t available and the difference is very noticeable when you go straight into The Book of Deacon from this short: it’s a much better beginning. So, IMHO, a must read for anyone before starting The Book of Deacon.
As with The Rise of the Red Shadow this story also tells us of one of the Chosen prior to the events in the main story. It also does dragons really well, and any book that does dragons really well is a great book. We liked this one very much.
There are two ways i know to get a copy, one is to sign up to Joseph’s newsletter and you’ll get it for free, the other is by buying the Lone Wolf Anthology.
Joseph’s Page
#fantasy #josephrlallo
Entwell Origins: Ayna — Joseph R. Lallo
The 3rd book in The Book of Deacon series is a little novella about a fairy named Ayna.
It covers a few aspects of Entwell that aren’t dealt with in the main story: like how fairies are captured and used as compasses to guide people through The Cave of the Beast. Mostly, it does this through a young fairy named Ayna who has different ideas on what a fairy should aspire to once they reach Entwell.
I read the copy in The Book of Deacon Anthology and while it’s a nice little story i felt this had a few too many typos which become detracting at times. Maybe someone needs to go back and correct all these little annoying errors and put out an update. But, for now, it’s still worth a read to add a bit more to ones knowledge of Entwell and its inhabitants.
Joseph’s Page
#fantasy #josephrlallo
Seeking the Shadow — Joseph R. Lallo
The second book in The Book of Deacon series.
This little short follows on directly after The Rise of the Red Shadow. Someone is hunting Lain — again — and is closing in rapidly.
A really good little short. Not really necessary to enjoy the main series, but absolutely essential if you enjoy the main series. 
