A video that I’m apparently forbidden from embedding, for a song that Bruno Mars apparently wrote. Congratulations Mr. Mars, I’d catch a grenade for the chance to hang my head in such shame.

I am trying however, not to get into the question of talent, or I might as well bring up the 8 writers that it took to write Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby’ is shocking in the context that it only took one Freddie Mercury to write ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, but then we get to our next contender.

That friends, is Nicki Minaj before the descent of her dignity.

See if you can spot the difference and tell me if I must say more.

Because I can’t bring myself to today.

Wait, let me start over.

Yes folks, it’s that time of day where I sit in front of my laptop (which is rarely on my lap during these, my apologies to hp but I prefer it when my computer doesn’t overheat and destroy three months’ work) and try to say something informative, stupid or unrelated to just about anything that could match with those first two criteria.

Can I use the word criteria like that?

I’ll leave it there and see if it catches fire I suppose.

Apologies if I’m not particularly engaging today as I spent the last few hours reading and answering questions about how frog hearts work outside of the frog’s body, and thus my entire brain has turned into an endless cesspit of amphibious organs, neurotransmitters and sliced open epithelial tissue.

I took a quick skim of a couple of stories I could go over today…

Pyramid power, or lack thereof…

why there are so many music videos with women in cages…

why watching a video of a young Nicki Minaj made me once again realise how little music industry executives seem to understand the concept of human dignity…

why so much blue tack has now stuck to my H key that I’m struggling not to make the rest of this blog an endless sea of constanants hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…

But then I realised that the blue tack actually wasn’t coming off and that I should shut down the computer so I don’t accidentally trigger selfdestruct.exe

I call blasphemy.

Speaking of blasphemy…

Take a look at this video that watches sort of like an 80s public service announcement but that demonstrates my views on the concept of open-mindedness in a better way than I probably ever could. Apologies if you’ve already seen this but I found it interesting enough to want to smear in all of your faces like monkey excrement on a cage.

Today, as some of you may know, and most of you will not know is my 3 year anniversary with my girlfriend, and as some of you should know, census data and other such places considers you single unless you are married.

I just got thinking about this because in the eyes of a lot of people this would not count as an anniversary, anniversaries, they would argue, are supposed to start being counted after you get married, no matter what that says about how long people who never marry have been together.

Can people who have been together for 25 years and have never married celebrate a silver anniversary or do they have to have signed some government/church-sanctioned certificate saying that they pinky promise to stay with each other forever and then are no longer single until half of them end in divorce while many of the couples that never marry remain together and yet are still considered singles.

Am I making sense to you right now? Because I was told yesterday that my writing needs work, so if I could hone down exactly where I’m pissing literary agencies off that would be a big help.

Anyway, celebrating a year after marriage I suppose is quite a nice thing but if you’ve been together for years and years before that how do you reconcile that?

Do you only celebrate the year since your marriage?

Do you celebrate that and all the years you have been together in total?

Because being together for a long time is quite the achievement, whether you’ve entered a registry office or not, and in modern times where the church does not have one hundred percent authority over our lives we should be able to decide how important our relationships are without God giving you the proverbial thumbs up.

That’s not to say I don’t like the idea of making the statement and the implications that go along with that statement, it just seems that perhaps some aspects of one of our most treasured of institutions is a little too archaic for the more fluctuating scales of our modern era.

-How is my writing? email me at eddystrickson@hotmail.com or leave a comment to try and help me work out which area of forming words I suck at in particular-

So what can we learn from this video?

Well, apparently the US government is trying to turn their citizens gay by ordering juice cartons to be lined with thin metallic films, putting MSG and fluoride in foodstuffs and that we are all blind to the truth, even Alex Jones, who apparently is disgusted with himself for eating Kettle Chips.

Shame on you Mr. Jones, with your potato snacks, next thing you know, you’ll be bombing local churches and burning flags in the name of the new world order.

Seriously though, how cynical do you have to be that you think everything around you is designed to harm you in one shade or another, whether it’s vaccines, food, drink, government, toothpaste, healthcare or babestation’s ten minute preview, surely there must come a point where you stop and think… perhaps I’m over thinking this? Perhaps, there is another explanation for why these things exist rather than for purposes of a worldwide government controlling our minds.

And then when you think about it, it would seem that with Alex Jones’ fan base and large media outlet that he would be the perfect person to spread government propaganda and lies.

Think about it Mr. Jones, if we use your methods of reasoning it leads to the obvious answer that you, yes you Mr. Jones, are a member of the illuminati.

The man is a rampant conspiracy theorist who has featured ‘the health ranger’ Mike Adams on his show a number of times to name but one of the misguided public speakers he has given a forum to damage the intellectual fortitude of the United States of America.

Let him know that there are at least some people in the world who know he’s talking out of his arse, or should I say ass?

Despite this however, there are some things I do want to know that aren’t related to messenger connect and one of them is whether you think turning away unvaccinated patients is a bad thing.

I completely understand the concern, a doctor has an obligation to protect the health of his/her patients and by exposing them to unvaccinated members of the population that’s a risk of sorts, and one that could cause serious harm if the aforementioned unvaccinated individual is carrying a disease.

But how far does the Hippocratic oath go? Can it take precedence over the right of individuals to receive basic healthcare?

Should they have to seek other doctors or should they be required by law to take the vaccines they’re missing.

I’m sure there are many people who would have a lot of complaining to do if the latter became universal, but despite what many media rabble-rousers would like the public to believe in a paranoid mess of uncertainty, being vaccinated against deadly diseases is in the public’s best interest.

Even if vaccines did cause the neurological diseases that some frankly, ignorant media figureheads falsely accuse them of, surely being autistic would be better than being dead?

Surely there’s no question?

But back to the matter at hand, if people are refusing to be vaccinated, are doctors obligated to make sure they don’t put the rest of their patients in danger?

I’m not quite sure yet where I’m falling in this question, if I had any sort of faith in humanity I might be saying a definite yes, but the lack of trust in life-saving technologies in some people is well and truly astounding.

Or maybe I’m just thinking about that phrase a little too hard, as fun to analyse as it is for the irony in using such a term to describe a dichotomy.

In this way we don’t even have the luxury of saying that people do or do not believe in God, and although many people apparently take issue with me disagreeing with this, there are people on the in between, and I have been one of them. The word agnostic is often described to mean several sets of beliefs that are not purely set on what they believe the truth about the existence of a deity is, but it follows that there are indeed people who genuinely have no swing one way or the other.

It’s not that they don’t care about the question, although there are many people who take that position, but when there are arguments for both that seem equally valid in your head it makes sense that no particular side gains more merit.

And even if we take non-believers as a group there is a scale therein. There are many superstitions that are held by people who are otherwise purely rational, and even (in the case of denialists) positions that they hold very passionately despite the lack of basis in fact.

Main point – next time you think a trait is absolutely one way or the other, try to think a little deeper and see if that makes the most sense.

But whether Dawkins gives non-believers a bad name is irrelevant to the original news story, and I think, probably detracts from it (and from that alone you can probably gather that I think the way that he comes across to religious people needs a lot of work, speaking as my past self) and that’s a real shame because it’s of great concern to us how this whole ‘Christian nation’ term is bandied about.

What does a Christian nation do? How would branding Britain as a Christian nation affect us?

Should we be abiding by the laws of the New Testament?

If so, how do we decide which ones to uphold?

Do we cherry pick until we find the values we like and dump the rest?

Because if so how is that being Christian?

We could just as easily make moral choices without checking whether they’re in the Bible first, certainly many of the acts forbidden in the Bible are inherent to anyone with an ounce of empathy, and the ones that aren’t? Well, they would probably end up being the laws that are cherry picked out, which would mean that essentially we are taking no inspiration from Christianity.

Does it mean that Christians should get special privileges? We already have faith-based schools, religious organisations are already tax-exempt and the only building more common than a church is a pub.

It’s a non-statement, I think is the bottom line.

Christianity is not a black and white term, there are many different levels of religiosity therein, from the westboro baptist church to a guy who doesn’t think much about it except that there might be something to that whole Jesus thing.

And when you try and say that you’re doing something in the interests of Christians? Just exactly who are the Christians you are attempting to please here? Are they the majority of the population? Does everyone with the beliefs you’re reinforcing agree with what you’re doing?

I tell you, if the next general election looks like the republican candidates did this year I’m packing up my bags and moving to Somalia.

See? Exactly one hundred.

Once every year though, there are hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of single people crying into their pillows and demanding that God stop hating them so him-damned much.

There are people out there who will have to go through a whole tub of Ben & Jerry’s on their own just to get over this, and we think this is okay?

Well this ends now.

For just £2 a month you can sponsor a single person and get them the help they need to pay for an operation to fix their broken hearts.

Don’t leave them forever alone, call today on 0800-OH-GOD-WHY or email us at whyiseveryoneifallinlovewitheitheramassivedouchebagorinlovewithsomebodyelse@savethebachelors.com

It’s a worthy cause and you know it.

Help out your local bachelors today.