Ladies, I have bad news

We are directly responsible for the global financial crisis. Yup, us uppity bitches and our outrageous and irresponsible desire for jobs has caused the entire planet to go into meltdown.

Well, not me. I mean, I'm a teacher which according to Newton Emerson is a proper job for a woman as it is "too demeaning for men". Phew.

Louise Livesy at The F-Word says it far better than I do so if you have the time I suggest you go and read her response to this piece of shit article.

I'll be over in the corner, sobbing and bashing my head against something pointy.

actually, fuck it.

What I wanted to say was this:

The body of a nineteen year old girl you have never met is not your public fucking property no matter who her parents are. The world does not give one solitary shit about whether or not you consider someone's personal choice to be "tacky", and how she will feel about that choice in X number of years' time is not your concern. You are not one of her friends, you are not a member of her family. Your moral outrage is condecending and uninvited.

You may have a right to hold your opinion on the subject, you may even feel the need to voice it - out loud or in print - but let me get this one thing straight: you do not hold the moral responsibility to inform the rest of the world as to what a mistake someone is making.

Don't agree with someone's life choices? Fine. Feel you have to contribute to the ongoing debate about the social issues concerning a particular topic? Spiffy. Doing so by posting a two line comment about a specific person's appearance on a newspaper site that offers nothing new or original the the discussion? Fuck you.

Her body is not your public property, you do not have a right to discuss her skin or the lines inked on it. You do not have a right to discuss how fat someone is, how thin they are or how veiny their arms may look. The size of a person's ass, or nose or piercing is not your problem, and does not provide a jumping off point for you to spout your own personal philosophy of bullshit.

The amount someone else eats is not your concern unless you are a health professional with a personal relationship to your patient. Your "well meaning" comments are bullshit. The world does not need another self important asshole who feels they have a right to dictate how the human body should look, feel or function. Your indignation and outrage is pathetic. The world doesn't give a shit how its actions affect your insignificant little life.

Now kindly fuck off.

re: Peaches

Dear Daily Mail,

Why is this news?

Are we short on "OH MY GOD THE IMMIGRANT MUSLIMZ R DESTROYING THE ECONOMY!!!! DIANA WAS MURDERED, KNIFECRIME CAUSES CANCER!!!!" stories this week?

While I do understand that you had some fabulous pictures of a bikini clad 19 year old to accompany the story may I humby suggest you find something better to write about?

Hugs and Kisses,

Alex
(your biggest fan)

ps. Thanks also to the commenters! As always, they broke my brain.

500 million years old? Damned whippersnapper, get off my lawn!

So scientists have found evidence (ie. chemical traces) of animal life which existed earlier than ever previously discovered. Primitive sponges which lived around 635million years ago. Highly awesome. One thing that struck me though was the following quote from the article in the Guardian:

Charles Darwin was famously sceptical of the idea that creatures could have materialised fully formed out of nowhere, a view shared by some experts today.

Emphasis mine. Seriously, "some" experts? I would like to meet the "experts" who fully agree with the "hey things just appear by magic, dude let's go have a beer" theory, cause they sound awesome.

[The Guardian]

Edit: Also, those with a fear of snakes probably shouldn't read this, although the article gets an automatic A+ for featuring a quote from an eminent scientist referencing Jennifer Lopez's performance in Anaconda. Amazing.

immediate reactions

Several things occured to me whilst reading the following article, luckily it's short. So I can go through it line by line

Prince William is thinking of getting a tattoo and my advice would be: don't do it.

Why the merry hell is this in the sports section. Seriously. I mean the author hasn't even done the fabulously original thing of adding "like David Beckham's" to the first sentence so seriously, why is it in the sports section. It makes no sense.

I remember my missus, annoyed that I was ignoring her in the bedroom, getting the letter "B" tattooed on each of her buttocks, believing that because I was obsessed with Brigitte Bardot it would refresh my libido.

This didn't happen. For several reasons: I refuse to believe this man is married and if, if by some slim chance there is a woman out there who can put up with his overarching vileness I also refuse to believe that she would get a tattoo in an attempt to get him to have sex with her.

Also: lamest and most obvious set up for a joke ever, Brigitte Bardot? Way to be relevant there Writer Guy! And how would having the initials of someone you fancied tattooed on your partner increase your libido? Again: That does not make sense. Seriously. If you're going to attempt to set up for the world's unfunniest punchline (see below) then at least put in some effort, guy.

When she lifted her dress and bent over to show me the artwork I went berserk. "Who the hell is Bob?" I wanted to know.

I thank god I wore my corset, for I fear my sides have split.

What's acceptable on a 20-year-old is too ghastly to contemplate on a 60-year-old. That goes for tattoos as well as me.

Whu? If someone could explain that last sentence in the comments section I would appreciate it massively. Is it some kind of cunning innuendo? A scathing commentary on our ever ageing population? A poorly executed attempt at a pun? Help a girl out here.

If you ever get the chance of going home with a choice of two women (unlikely, I know), always plump for the one with the tattoo.

Ooooh you just know this is going to be good. Please, rain down your wisdom upon me oh Mirror Sports columnist. I need to understand in order to reach the godlike heights of your sexual prowess and wit.

She has already demonstrated she's willing to have a go and regret it at a later date.

Sorry. Got distracted there by all the tumbleweed.

Bookies Paddy Power are betting on the tattoo the Royal Willie will get and make 'Mum' a 6-1 chance and 'Kate' a 7-1 chance.

D'ya get it? Do ya?

I fucking give up.

hmmm

You know why this doesn't annoy me?

Because I've actaully been to Oceana.

WaPo... you disappoint me.

So I got a very lovely email from Megbon, a Pajibite and apparent Ink&Apples reader (I got a tip! I feel so unameteurish!) about an op ed piece in the Washington Post, on my very favourite subject.

Aaaah yes. The article is predictably one sided, narrow minded and poorly researched. I wonder where we've seen that before?

Instead of going through the article and ranting (essentially copying and pasting my post I linked to above) I thought today we'd play a little game of bingo with my Write Your Own Tattoo Themed "News" Story post.

Here's how it works (we all know how much I love inventing rules)

The categories are as follows:

Title - Worth one point
Photo - Worth one point
Text - in terms of topics 1-3 = one point, 4-6 = two points, 7-9 = three points, all ten = a whopping five points
Factfile - one point for either
Comments - 1-4 = two points, 5-8 = five points

Bonus points: Article not provoked by a relevant item in the news (not counting "trend pieces") - two points.

This gives a maximum score of 10 for articles without comments, 15 for articles with them.

Let's see how Richard Cohen fares

Title: "Ink-Stained Wretchedness"? Hell yes, that's worth a point
Photo: Sadly none for the online edition. Nil points.
Text: I count five, which is understandable - the fun and unbalanced articles don't need to give you information about the actual process or artform! Two points
Factfile: None. Nil Points.
Comments: Oh god, this hurt. This really really hurt.

Although I would like to nominate the following for BEST COMMENT EVAR!!!!11 award

Soloman proposed in the Proverbs, some 3000 years ago, that understanding, character and sincerity contribute to wisdom. Wisdom and purity of spirit, he said, were the noblest goals of mankind.

American womankind, in our own peculiar days of ignorance, however, has her own ideas and ambitions. She is desecrating her body with a single-minded ugliness, both in body fat and in written body language, that emanates from the wellsprings of personal disaffection.

In time a mirror will reveal to her the kinship of her body and her soul. For knowledge is a mirror, for us to see ourselves as what we are, and what we would hope to be. What we would hope to be is surely what our children, and their children would wish us to be. They are our mirrors.

Seriously? That's amazing. A piece of art one might say, truly. I stand in awe.

Anyway! I had to stop reading on page three, partly because I'd already reached the threshold for maximum points by the middle of the second page and partly because I think I was about to burst a few blood vessels and I think I probably need them

Needless to say - five points.

Bonus points: Oh hell yes, two points for you Mr Cohen! I think one of the commenters says it best:

Wow, nice job staying relevant, Washington Post. I'm sure people are going to keep paying for your increasingly crappy newspaper with gems like this!

Quite.

So how did he do?

10 out of a possible 15 points! But don't despair you have to say at least one positive thing to even be eligible for a perfect score.

(for those interested Simon Mills scored a whopping 9 out of 10 points, managing to make even the articulate quotes have a negative spin on them. There were no comments on the piece but I think he deserves special mention for mentioning five out of a possible eight commenter opinions within the text of the article itself.

Stay classy, Simon. Stay classy.)

women and tattoos

A couple of articles were published today on the subject of women and tattoos. The first is, predictably, completely fucking dreadful. But I'm going to cut it some slack because it sounds like the kind of thing a junior researcher wrote at three am while wired up on coffee and under the instruction to "make it sexy" (because seriously there's no other explanation: Women like butterflies! And hearts! Dolphins are meaningful! Stars are cute! That splintering noise you can hear is my teeth grinding by the way).

The second article, from my favourite newspaper, is actually much better. Despite a false start ("Once seen as a macho world of bikers and seedy basement parlours" which I'm convinced they actually have to put in articles on tattoos in order to get them published) the piece focuses on some of the awesome female tattoo artists working today. Of course, the first artist they have to mention is Kat Von D I mean, fair enough, she's incredibly high profile but the woman irritates the hell out of me. And I've never even seen an episode of her reality show. I think it's something to do with irresponsible and poor quality tattooing under the guise of breaking a world record or possibly having a makeup range at Sephora (because, seriously?) but whatever.

More importantly the article also talks about Saira Hunjan, a woman whose work actually makes me drool. And even more importantly than that the artist I want for my eventual full left leg tattoo based primarily on this lovely lady's description.

I suggest you go and read the whole thing. It's worth a look.

In other tattoo related news: Want. The Boy (unoriginal moniker I know, but it's how I refer to him in my head anyways) has been talking about wanting a new set of tarot cards for ages, and I'm thinking of adding to my collection. I may have to buy a couple of sets next month when I have some cash because: wow. Pretty.

a quick news round up

Christina Ricci manages to simultaneously misunderstand the term "positive female role model" and make my soul cry when talking about her new film, impressive to say the least.

Yesterday was the 90th anniversary of British women over the age of thirty getting the right to vote. The Guardian had an interview with the director of the Fawcett Society on how far we've come and the progress that still has to be made. It's well worth a read.

Guess what? Tattoos, in addition to being awesome, may actually have a medical benefit. BBC news reports that tattooing may be an ideal method of vaccine delivery as the process is excellent for promoting an immune response (anyone who has suffered tattoo flu can attest to this). Looks like it would be too painful to use on children but hey, there's always livestock.

Today marks the start of the Year of the Rat. There are a ton of fun things going on in my fair city and, if timing allows, I'm planning on heading out to soak in some culture and enjoy the fireworks this weekend. I suggest you go out and do the same (or at least get some dim sum).

Oh and did I mention that I went to see this guy over the weekend? Well I did and he was sufreakingperb. A mini-review of the show should be going up some time this afternoon.

I weep for humainity...

I was flicking through the Guardian today when I came across the "notes and queries" section in the G2. One of the queries rendered me actually, literally speechless - no mean feat (I learnt to talk at the age of one and apparently "haven't stopped since"). Alas, the query isn't up on the website yet so you'll have to take my word for it:

"Evolution is now well-documented and accepted, so if people kept jumping off the roof of a tall building, how long would it take before we developed wings to fly?"

Seriously?

Ok. A deep seated hatred of the kind of people who write into newspaper editorials actually prevents me from writing in to the section in question with my response, however it doesn't stop me from passive-aggressively ranting about it in my blog. Here is a highly simplified crash course on how evolution works:

Evolution is in its simplest form "survival of the fittest". The best adapted members of a species are more likely to survive and/or be chosen as breeding partners - meaning that they are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This makes those favourable genes more common in each successive generation. As the process continues through the generations the "favourable traits" that led to the first individual's evolutionary success become more and more widespread until eventually they become "normal". I'm aware that my hastily noted ramblings may be confusing so let's use a totally fictional and rather extreme disease model to simplify things:

On planet Alex there are millions of bunnies (why bunnies? Because it's planet Alex. Deal with it). The bunnies all live in harmony on planet Alex, which is plentiful in food and free from predators, and are free to interbreed at will. Because of this there is a large amount of genetic diversity. Some of the bunnies have spontaneously mutated so that they carry gene X (note the "spontaneous" part. This is random people). At the moment gene X has no general effect on the population and so it is passed on from parent bunny to baby bunny with no real consequence. Until the plague comes.

(The plague has been brought to planet Alex by evil toad overlords who came for a two week holiday and then buggered off again)

The plague is fatal to the bunnies on planet Alex, however it just so happens that gene X makes the bunnies that carry it immune to the plague. This is a total coincidence. Pretty soon the entire bunny population has been wiped out by the plague, leaving only the bunnies with gene X alive. Because they are bunnies they set about repopulating planet Alex pretty sharpish. The result? Every in bunny in the population now carries gene X.

That was a very simplistic and entirely unrealistic scenario (in actual fact there are no bunnies native to planet Alex) but the basic point I'm making here is that evolution is a process that happens by chance not by design. It is caused by the selection of existing genetic traits that have become favourable for survival due to a particular environment. It is not caused by the actions of individual members of a species over time.

Taking the above example: people continually leaping from a roof top would not cause other members of the population to sprout wings, it would merely serve to remove those idiots who jumped off of buildings from the breeding pool.

And that ladies and gents is why I'm going into science journalism.

The worst thing is when I told one of my co-workers that I'd seen something truly depressing in the newspaper our resulting conversation was as follows:

"You mean the thing I sent you?"
"Erm, what thing you sent me?"
"The thing with the scratchcards."
"What thing with the scratchcards?"
"The thing I sent you with the....Jesus, Alex. Try checking your work email."
"Ok, ok..... Oh, crap."

The little gem awaiting me in my inbox was this. My favourite line of the piece?

""I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it."

I'll be out back, researching tall buildings with roof access in my local area.

wednesday geekery

I'm feeling the warm and glowy love for my subject today. Mainly because of this article. Seriously, if it were possible to marry a piece of journalistic writing it would be this one waiting for me in the registry office. The author puts into words exactly what I want to scream at some people on a daily basis. The gist of the article is this:

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable. This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

It's a well written piece and well worth the read, I may be a little biased as creationists were the bane of my religious studies A-level (I did it for the ethics course which, incidentally was a super fun experience. I was the only person in the room who didn't think that aborting your heroin addicted half sibling was going to earn you a one way ticket to the land of fire and brimstone. Try teaching situational ethics to that crowd. Here's a hint: you can't.) but this is not an anti religion thing, people are perfectly capable of combining science with belief. I've seen it happen. And whether or not I see the rationale or point behind it is an entirely off-topic issue.

The way I see it the essential problem is the death of the questioning mentality. The general public isn't educated enough in the basics of science to question what the newspapers and their so called "experts" have to say. And so we live in a society where potentially famine-solving research into GM crops is put on hold because "We'd be eating DNA!!!!", people give their life savings to psychics and mothers endanger the lives of their children because they want them to be treated "naturally". It makes me ill.

Here's my dirty little secret: I own two decks of tarot cards. I can also read I-ching. I have an oracle book. But and I really must stress this I do not believe that they will answer my problems or tell me anything I don't already know. Dividing yarrow stalks or dealing cards gives me the time to think over a problem and by the time I'm done it doesn't even matter what the outcome is. I think horoscopes are a bit of fun, I read them as I flick past the page and then immediately forget them. These things are diversions at best and quite frankly anyone who thinks they're anything more needs a fucking straitjacket.

I think magazine psychics are a sick joke - especially the ones who pass on messages from dead loved ones or give life advice based on their spirit guides. Live psychics are frankly, con-artists. Anyone who's looked at cold reading will tell you so. But still this isn't where my problem lies.

My problem is when they call it science.

Skepdic makes for an enlightening read on the subject especially if you don't have a scientific background, there are some fantastic articles on the ways that studies using "scientific methodology" can be deliberately misinterpreted, skewed or simply explained away. Most people don't understand scientific terminology so if you have an agenda to push then it's easy to twist things your way by throwing out some jargon and hoping the public bites.

I honestly believe that critical thinking should be on the curriculum as standard. But what do I know?


Well now that the ranting and raving is over with I'll give you something amusing to look at while I get on with the business of packing up my soap box.



Now that's dedication to the cause. There are more tattoos for the thoroughly geeky here, and I must say: it did indeed brighten up my day.

morning update - Sharks!

For those of you not familiar with the British tabloids this time of year is what is known as "silly season". During the parliamentary recess there's often a dearth of real news (other than the usual stories about immigrants bringing down our house prices, intrepid reporters sneaking replica guns onto planes, "soaring" crime rates, the general hideousness of the youth today and wild, completely unfounded speculation about kidnapping cases) which often leads to some rather fun filler pieces.

This year it's sharks.

Great White sharks to be exact. In Cornwall. I'll give you a second to either ponder that or look up exactly where Cornwall is.

The Sun (my favourite of the red-tops) has been literally going mental over the story.

Sharks!!!

No, really - we're serious: Sharks!

Honestly, an expert said so.

Human interest angles are vital to the journalistic cause and not merely cynical marketing ploys.

Add in some stories about how Cornwall's economy is now booming and how some "cheeky bakers" have been cashing in by making Cornish pasties in the shape of shark fins (so triangular, then) and you have the makings of an international sensation. I say "international" as several news networks from outside the UK also chose to run the story.

Which makes this article from today's Guardian even more tasty.

"I didn't expect anyone to be daft enough to take it seriously."

Quite.

taking temporary tattoos to a whole new level

This article in the Guardian caught my attention this morning. I have kind of a problem with the concept of tattoos becoming "trendy" (although I will be laughing my pretty inked ass off when everyone who got a tattoo because it was cool suddenly finds themselves stuck with a permanent brand that's no longer in style) it's just another case of something I love being made tacky by the mainstream. I guess I'm lucky in that I'm crazy about something that is inherently customisable but it still annoys me.

This is essentially someone putting patterns on a shirt and using the label of "tattoo" as a marketing tool, but I suppose if people want to waste their money on a pointless fad then more power to them. I did like the attitude of the artist towards the guy licensing his artwork though:

"This guy is at ground zero of everything that is wrong with contemporary civilisation," Hardy commented. "However, if he wants to make a lot of money with my art and it's not going to be overtly negative, then what the hell."

Anything associated with the word "tattoo" that doesn't come with some pain and the problem of permanence just isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. I didn't think I'd ever believe this but now half the point of getting ink done is the process for me. I think maybe I'd be less irritated about the clothing line if there was some kind of physical penalty involved in the buying process, perhaps for every cap you buy then you get 15 minutes of a sharp stick being jabbed repeatedly into your ribs. The time limit could increase by the size of the item and by the cliched nature of the design. Now that would be acceptable. Almost.

The Guardian (which seems to be running a theme of late) also published this article last week on the future of durable, removable tattoos. I'm an inherently fickle person and at the grand old age of 22 I'm already getting a cover-up/re-work of one of my pieces of ink. Do I wish this technology had been around then? No.

"Why ever not, Alex?" You ask. Well, I'll tell you:

I currently have a big, blue, unlined snowflake on my right shoulder blade. It's horrifyingly placed, poorly coloured and if I have to hear one more person say "is that.... umm.... is that a cross? No... can't be a cross - it's blue. Maybe some kind of flower?" I'll scream. But it's my own fault. I was 18 when I got it, it's my first piece of custom work and I spent all of fifteen minutes thinking about it. I was too nervous to say anything to the artist and so just mutely nodded when he showed me the art (which I could tell I wasn't 100% about even then) and got it done. I hated it from the second it was on my skin. Every one around me hates it still, but I don't.

In fact, I kind of love it now.

It's there as a permanent reminder that I shouldn't rush into things, to think things through before I do them and, when it's been re-worked, it will be a symbol that even something truly awful can be made better again. Bizarre that the most non symbolic of my tattoos can end up meaning the most to me in the end. And I've learnt from it - my last tattoo had to be repositioned five times before I was completely happy with it, and I had no qualms about doing so. And I'm going to be a complete pain to my artist with my next design, but I've learnt now that if something isn't perfect from the beginning then it's not going to magically become that way over time, so I don't really have a choice.