R.I.P Common Sense

I have to say it here but it’s getting on my nerves (what else is new?) and I can’t really say it outside but I don’t feel anything about Michael Jackson passing away. I never liked a single of song but Scream with Janet Jackson, I don’t like his persona, his demeanour, his work…nothing! I like his sister but not him. Never have, never will.

It’s tragic, of course. Someone who dies so young is always tragic. Especially if you consider the last 20 years of his life that were not among the happiest, one would easily agree.

What’s getting on my nerve is the world-wide hypocrisy now that he’s dead. Everyone is deeply saddened, shocked and can barely hold back their tears everytime they think about him…as they say. This is absolutely sickening!

Three days ago, he was still a horrible lying monster everyone, but his very few true fans, was laughing at when they were not calling him a megalomaniac and schizophrenic paedophile. He was publically humiliated everytime he stepped outside, made ashamed of every single of his moves and words.

Lately countless reporters went to Neverland to grant us with pompous and judgmental constitution-length articles on the appalling state of the park and how lonely and pathetic he now was. We had articles and documentaries on his drinking problems, on his marriages, his children with some fatuous, self-righteous people who never knew him commentating on the dreadful father he was supposed to be.

We had articles and interviews that described him as irritating diva who was asking for a horrendous and highly unjustified price for his last tour.

And now he’s dead and here he is: the fallen angel, the greatest of the greats, the Ninth World Wonder (the Eighth is Beckham, of course…).

Here we are comparing him to people like Maria Theresa and Lady Diana.

The comparaison with Elvis is right for he had a immense talent and brought something new and refreshing to the world of music. Even if I don’t like what he did, no one can deny it and I won’t. But I will put my foot down and rile on everyone who has the indecency and the insanity to compare him to the likes of Lady Di.

Lady Di was a woman of selflessness. She puts her life in danger walking of landmine fields, she confronted the worst going to villages of Sahel and slums of Calcutta to help the poorest and most miserable in the world. She fought until the very end for people to open their eyes and help others.

She was the Princess of the People. Michael Jackson was the King of the Pop like Madonna is its Queen.

Is Madonna Lady Di? As much I love and worship her music, no!

Michael Jackson was a musician who never gave more than his music. So spare us the hypocrite tears, you cowards. You had let him down, you had forsaken him and let him rot alone with a bottle of vodka. You had rejected him then had fed yourself on the sour milk of his misery and slanders created by those who wanted him down.

Now I even have friends who have never once mentioned him when talking about music, never bought a single album and can’t even give the name of a single song from him but who are saying they are in painful mourning.

I have never liked him yet also never judged him. In that way, I might not be sad or in mourning as “the rest of the world” according to the press, but I’m a better person.

Gay couple

David Burtka and Neil Patrick Harris

Aw, we love them!

Will it...?

Gerald Scarfe for the Sunday Times.

Corbin's gift

Well, that's new(s)

From the Guardian ; June, 17th 2009

Same-sex relationships may play an important role in evolution

Biologists claim that same-sex relationships help drive the evolution of animals' physiology, life history and social behaviourBirds do it.

Bees probably do it. No one's sure whether educated fleas do it. What they do is have same-sex relationships and, in a new review of published research on the subject, biologists have started to consider what it might mean for the evolution of the animals in question.

Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk, biologists at the University of California, Riverside, found that same-sex relationships were a universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, seen in everything from worms to frogs to birds. "It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Bailey.

Penguins have been known to form long-term same-sex bonds where males will engage in sexual activity. Toads generally don't discriminate between sexes while marine snails all start out male and, when they mate with another male, one of them helpfully changes sex. Dolphins will often touch their genitals together or one male might even mount another and penetrate its blowhole. Bonobos go the furthest in same-sex bonding with regular copulation among males.

But not all relationships should be considered the same. A male fruit fly, for example, may court other males because it lacks a gene that allows it to tell the difference between the sexes. "But that is very different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan albatross that can remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young," said Bailey.

Writing in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution, the authors said that lots of previous studies had considered how same-sex relationships might have come about but very few studies had considered whether the relationships shape the course of evolution.

"Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviors might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

In other words same-sex relationships might shape evolution in subtle and important ways for many animals. When bilogists think about selective pressure in evolution, they tend to focus on environmental concerns such as weather, temperature, or geographic features in a particular locality. Social circumstances can also have an impact and Bailey argues that same-sex relationships could "radically change those social circumstances, for example by removing some individuals from the pool of animals available for mating."

In addition, the behaviour can lead to the evolution of defence mechanisms. "For example, male-male copulations in locusts can be costly for the mounted male, and this cost may in turn increase selection pressure for males' tendency to release a chemical called panacetylnitrile, which dissuades other males from mounting them," said Bailey.

Bailey and Zuk are also researching the Laysan albatross, a species in which females form same-sex pairs and rear young together. "Same-sex behavior in this species may not be aberrant, but instead can arise as an alternative reproductive strategy," they said.

Almost a third of Laysan albatross couples are female-female pairs and they are more successful than unpaired females when it comes to rearing chicks.

"Same-sex sexual behaviors are flexibly deployed in a variety of circumstances, for example as alternative reproductive tactics, as cooperative breeding strategies, as facilitators of social bonding or as mediators of intrasexual conflict. Once this flexibility is established, it becomes in and of itself a selective force that can drive selection on other aspects of physiology, life history, social behaviour and even morphology," said Bailey.

Sexy! No no no...

Back in business

With the Aussies from Gods of Football 2009

(Not real football though because they basically hold the ball in their arms and hands for most of the game)

Today's France is all his...unglory.

The President is supposed to represent France, to be its living symbol and he is doing perfectly.

The one who's riddled by an irrelevant inferiority complex and who wants to make himself as big as the others.

He could take the high road and try to prove one should not judge a book by its cover but how could he when he judges everyone and everything by their covers?

So he remains a pathetic twat and makes himself big by means of cheat.

It's fake. It's meaningless, pointless. There's no depth whatsoever. Just image matters.

Everyone can see it and honestly, when you see that, why would you go behind the cover and waste your time reading the book?

He's doomed to remain a twat and a dog desperately looking for a master.

Peter Pan's gay affair

A friend of mine has a theory that Cristiano Ronaldo is a tranny.

Let's study the facts:

No hair from under his eyebrows to his toe.

Muscle that looks like he's gone through surgery in Brasil. He speaks the language so that's utterly probable.

He's nothing but a whinning, mincing, squealing, faking-it, always complaining, utterly unbearable little shite of a bitch dressing three sizes too small.

I've got another theory, he's not a tranny, he's a big fucking fairy!

And not in a good way, you know. He's the kind that shows off and thinks he's better than anyone.

He's not a tranny, he's Tinker bloody Bell in very bad Portugese male version.