I hate it. There is nothing worse or more pointless then a chain letter. I seriously do not understand what the writers of them get out of it. I got one today on my Myspace and it said, and I quote.

MUST PLAY! OR A MAN WILL APPEAR BY YOUR BED WITH A KNIFE AND WILL KILL YOU! THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE YOUR LIFE IS TO PICK THE CONDOM THAT REPRESENTS YOUR LOVE LIFE!OH BY THE WAY, DO NOT IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IF YOU DO HE WILL COME AT THE TIME 3:16 AT NIGHT AND KILL YOU! - Random Myspace Post.

What the hell! Who would get kicks out of writing that and who would believe it. I am getting sick of seeing these posted on myspace, forums and also in e-mails . We must do something about it.

If you believe we should do something, repost everywhere you can think of. If you don't, something may or may not happen to you.

This year I've decided to hit the reading hard. My original plan was to read 100 books in the year. As you might guess, I'm struggling to meet the deadline. However, the latests book I have finished and placed back on the shelf is Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie.

If you're unaware of the book, the basic gist is that of a dying 76-year old Morrie who, on his deathbed, is reunited with his old college sociology student. Touching stuff, I know.

However, I had a bit of a problem with this book. See, Morrie was something of an optimist and always saw the brighter side of life, but along with this, he spent most of the book preaching pearls of wisdom to Mitch (his 30-something protege). Why do someone's words carry more credence once they're dying? After all, aren't we all dying?

Why went someone is in the autumn moments of their life, do they suddernly become some sort of visionary savior with all the answers? If people didn't bother to listen before, why do they listen once death is knocking at the door? In my opinion, just because someone is dying, it doesn't give their comments anymore validity, it only adds sorrow to their sentences, nothing more.

The first of hopefully many comics that I will be submitting onto this blog. They will be mostly of political and social subject matter although I may sometimes have ones that involves more slapstick humour. I started with George Bush because, well his easy. Enjoy

Plus, if you have any ideas for the comic strips name please comment them in. I would like to heard what you think of them.

You all know of what I speak about. It drives us crazy in the mornings. Causes us to rummage under washing machines and in the backyard under the clothesline. It is a problem that has plagued us for years, but so far has revealed no solution.

Why, oh why, is there always a loose sock in the draw.

No matter how hard we try we eventually end up with a feet-warmer that is missing its better half. Usually, this results in the item being discarded to the depths of the underwear draw. Waiting. Hoping. Praying, for the return of its brother. We leave the stranded sock there for months, years even, in the vain hope that it will be reunited and made whole once more.

Where does this sock go? Is it really that hard to lose such a vital and distinct piece of clothing as the sock? Why do we only ever lose socks and not some other piece of clothing - like shirts or ties? It's always the sock. We are a sock negligent society, oblivious to the injustices directed at socks.

But, out of all of this, there is one thing that truely puzzles me. The socks are never found, yet for some reason we always come across socks (sometimes shoes on rare occassions) left stranded in parks, beaches, on the side of the road even. How does a sock make it from your bedroom to Highway 4? Something's going on, maybe there is a stockpile of odd socks with a combined value that will solve our current economic recession?

More answers are needed, and more research necessary.

Well, there has been some good posts since I last blogged but I am back and I guess I have to step up my game if I am to compete as a essential part of this blogging community. What I would like to discuss today is the 'me' generation (or otherwise known as generation Y) for those of you that don't know it is the group of people born from 1983 to 1997. I have fallen into the stereotype that is a 'Me' generation. The general consensus is that we are the group of youths that experienced the dawn of the digital age with many of us born just before the launch of the Internet and being of an age when iPods, Myspace, blogging and Facebook hit the scene.

97% own a computer, 94% own a cell phone and 76% use Instant Messaging. This sums up the dependence of the 'me' generation on technology and it is because of this that we have been dubbed as selfish and without morals, something that has been blamed on the decline of teenagers and young adults that follow a religion. With a third of the 'me' generation speculated to have no belief system at all. Doesn't this smack of John Lennon's famous quote that "rock and roll would out last religion" Although I am not saying religion is dead, it is evident that it is dying and with current trends such as the lack of nuns in convents and the lack of priests worldwide it is hard to see a very long term future for religion.

So the question is, is a future without religion one that is bleak or is it not so bad after all? Will it be the 'me' generation that causes the demise?

I found this while searching through the Darwin Awards. Guess Americans are the only one who have a problem with weapons.

(28 July 2006, Australia) Police wished to question Gareth, 38, in connection with a stabbing. But he evaded that unpleasant business by driving his car into a power pole. It was initially assumed that he had simply lost control of the vehicle, but Victoria police soon determined that the fatal crash was caused by an accidental shot to the groin. Apparently the deceased had been driving along with a loaded firearm that he kept handy in the footwell of the car.

Well, this is obviously my first post here so forgive me if it’s somewhat sub-par. I am going to be doing somewhat of a series on the 'invasion' of Iraq. If I was forced to label myself as 'Pro-War' or 'Opposed' to the war, I would have to say I am closer to 'Pro-War'. I wish to make it clear that I am not a 'Gun-Crazed' redneck which the media (in Australia at least) seems to enjoy portraying as supporters of the war. I shall explain my personal standing in more depth on the topic in my final post of the series.

Todays post will be looking at the theory held by many people that the War isn't really about terrorism or anything such as that (I’m not saying it is or isn't) but it is about Oil. It is widely accepted that Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world therefore there is great potential for extreme wealth. Now, I shall summarize the view of many people around the world, 'Iraq has oil, America uses oil, Remember the Gulf War? This must be for oil!'. Well, if we all choose to think like that then I suppose that the following theory is rational, 'A man just walked into Burger King, I saw in the newspaper that he was once in prison for robbing a Fast-Food restaurant, He must be robbing Burger King! Someone Shoot Him!’ Wouldn't the world be a Happier Place if we all thought like this?

Oh yes, I know what some of you may be thinking right now, 'I don't think like that, but the Oil fields are worth around 40 Billion Dollars, That must be why America is there'. Ok, America has spent around 540 Billion so far with the possibility of spending up to 1 Trillion on the Invasion Effort. Admittedly this may be a personal flaw of my own, but I wouldn't be so keen on spending 1 Trillion Dollars so the Oil Companies can come in and take the Majority Share of 40 Billion Dollars, but hey, that's just me.

I’m sure that we are all aware that both George Bush and Dick Cheney were previously Oil-Men. This is a funny coincidence I'll admit but again this relates back to my first point, If a man once held up a Fast-Food store, would he only return to a Fast-Food store to do that act again? Can’t he simply be hungry and be willing to pay for his food? Yes, I realize that this is a drastic comparison but the point is we can't label people for their past actions.

In closing I will say that to truly believe that the War in Iraq is solely about the acquisition of their Oil fields requires an extremely narrow minded point of view and a phenomenal amount of ignorance. I trust, or should I say I dearly hope that no-one reading this still believes that the Iraq War is solely about Oil, If you do then I will sadly request you to wake up, stop treating wikipedia and the evening news as a bible and start thinking logically.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Barack Obama. As an avid non-supportor of the 'war on terror' I'm particularly happy with America facing the prospect of electing a president whose sole concern isn't the size of his six-shooter. Yes, that's right, I did emphasise that the president's job is a man's job. Or atleast it will stay that way if current media trends are allowed to continue.

Obama's current and only competition in the race for the Democrat candidacy is Hilary Clinton. While it seemed that Sen. Clinton was the popular Democratic choice at the beginning of the Presidential primaries, her support has slowly deteriorated over the course of the campaign. Sure, someone has to loose the race eventual, but has political popularity through media bias destroyed the voting public's own opinion? When I say 'we', I'm clearly talking about the American public. As an Australian and British citizen I have no right to vote in their political process, however sometimes I wish myself (and others like me) could. After all, if America gets to rule the world surely I should have some say in it.

Politically ignorant and fickle Americans aside, why does the media hate Clinton so much? A 2007 Center for Media and Public Affairs study shows that Clinton receives 3 negative reports to every 2 positive. Compare this to Obama who receives 3 positive to every 2 negative. Surely both politicians are just as corrupt as each other, after all they are politicians.

Again, I'm off track and in danger of becoming to cynical. However, my question still remains, why do the media adore Obama but despise Clinton? Has this been turned into a gender vs. race rivalry, or is it just coincidence? Is it an attempt to repay one oppressed sector of society for former wrongs? If this is the case, do we feel as a Western society that we owe more to African-Americans than women? Is Hilary Clinton purely a person with which we love to hate? Or is Obama just impossible not to love?

Have your say.

Well, I am posting two today. This one is all about why I think South Park is one of the best shows on T.V. and I would also like to mention that Jack Orr is going to be posting on this blog in the near future, so we will all be looking forward to seeing what he has to say.

South Park is a show that I have grown to love. I original watched it at the age of 10 or 11 for the shock value of a cartoon containing swearing. I believe that was the original intention of the show but recently I have been watching some of the latest episodes and I cant get over how spot-on the show is. In some of there new episodes they explore some of the world's more controversial topics and without being bias, rip both sides of the topic apart. For example, take the episode in which the town of South Park is divide on the topic of 'The Iraq War'. The town discuss' how pro-war Americans use country music and the constantly overused term "un-American". While the anti-war citizens use rock and roll to convey there side of the topic. At the end of the episode, the conclusion is, why cant America be diplomatic when they have to be and fight when it is vital. Although the content is presented in South Park's typically crude and ignorant style, I still do believe that it is one of the best shows on television. Instead of dancing around topics or not even touching them, like most shows do, South Park almost dives straight into social taboos and then points out the most obvious solution or problems. This is why the shock value is moved from Stone and Parker's swearing to their very honest views of important issues.

Today's post isn't going to be as long as yesterdays and to be honest, I don't think I am ever going to write that much again in my entire life. But I would like to continue yesterday's random bantering with something that has a bit more substance.

As you may know yesterday was Mother's Day and what it made me realise was that it is so over-commericialized! First, may I just say anyone who thinks that there is a deeper meaning to Mothers Day than over commercial goods, is in my eyes, an idiot. The day begins with the giving of presents and keepsakes although it is obvious that most will be looked at and only used once or twice, then thrown away. It is then followed by lunch or dinner and before you know it the days over. But what annoys me the most about these days is that people have become so accustom to receiving presents that they don't appreciate them and when they don't get some, and feel ripped off. I just guess that is the society that we live in today.

It has become a day that is so revolved around spending money that the day has lost all meaning, the only holiday that has managed to keep its initial origins is Christmas, everyone knows that it is to celebrate the birth of Santa.

Well, this is my first go at the Internet phenomenon that is 'blogging' and unlike the majority of my fellow bloggist (or whatever the plural to blogger maybe) I will not be discussing trivial pursuits, such as 'different faces my cat pulls','Why I believe that Firefox is better then IE 7' and 'why dancing with the star is the greatest show EVER'. For you see I am someone who believes in journalistic integrity and ethical values. That is why the only things that you will be reading on this blog will be of the highest standard, or at least at the level of Fox News and the Western Australian. My ultimate plan is to create something of value and if that means discussing the latest political race or why monkeys on small bikes are funny I will go there and beyond, although most of the time the topics will be a bit more diverse.

Today I was in a clothing retailer in Perth and I saw an item of clothing that created a bit of debate between me and a friend. It was a vest. A seemingly pointless piece of clothing that I don't fully understand the use for. If you want to be warm, then get something with sleeves. The only people i can see having any interest in buying a vest is those with intensely hot arms but a surprisingly cold torso, but that is beside the point. The reason that this topic bought up debate was we realised a double standard that is set with a vest (there is nothing more annoying and intriguing than a double standard). What we realised was that in most cases while watching ET or flicking though those celebrity magazines in the staff room (for the sole purpose of passing time) is that the celebrity males in particular seem to be in this 'vestarama' and with the most daring of them matching it with a tie.

When you see this fashion statement (that must state 'I have everything but a suit coat') everyone seems to believe that this is a very "cool" style of clothing and then in general fashion the 'great unwashed' follow suite (unintentional pun, I am not that clever). It is at this point that the double standard is committed whenever I walk past someone on the boulevard and they are wearing a vest, I immediately think 'what a loser, who wheres a vest especial with a tie!" I find it funny (not 'hahaha' funny but thought provoking funny, you know the type) that a celebrity can pass this style of just because they are well known that the rest look like try-hards that want to be more popular. This is something that has troubled me for the last two hours and I hoped it has enlightened you to the vest wearing discrimination that is so rampant in our society, next week the Neo coat.