2013-05-26T22:55:52-04:00 Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=tom-carter Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Tom Carter Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1332997 2012-03-08T16:07:28-05:00 2012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
That was a conversation I overheard. And by "overheard" I mean I just made it up. Essentially, though, it is what every person in the world is thinking. I know it is because I heard it on the news. So why then do Russia and China enjoy seeing so many people die, and worst still - needlessly? Not like one of those nasty people dying, that's alright. Why can't they just step in and wipe out all the bad guys and save all the good guys? Then everything will be alright. The problem is people will start to think that they are the bad guys and I know Russia and China aren't like that. I've been to Russia and everyone that I met was very nice; unlike those rude South Americans, however. I've met three in my life, I didn't ask where they were from (it didn't matter, I knew they were from that area) and 2 of them were rude and the other just didn't seem that interested in what I had to say.

It's so much easier when we know who the bad guys are. The latest internet sensation KONY2012 has spread like Syrian forces through Homs this week as it aims to raise the profile of Joseph Kony and his barbaric Lords Resistance Army in order to secure his arrest. The glossy Hollywood production has certainly left its mark as nearly 40 million have viewed the video at time of writing this. It's also left a mark on its accounts as well as 25% of its $8.8m income was spent on travel and film-making. With only 30% going towards programmes on the ground in Uganda you could be forgiven for thinking that this is an organisation that haemorrhages money. But they have good intentions and that counts for something, right? Give them a break - they've just spent $2.2m on travelling and making films for crying out loud. How much money have you spent on making a film to help the poor and vulnerable? Nothing, get off their back.

It's always difficult when an argument is nuanced. It means that you are going to have to concentrate longer than you would ideally like. When it is an emotional response, it's easy isn't it? You just find the bad guy and point and say "bad guy". When there is an intelligent discourse then it takes longer doesn't it, because the lines are blurred and it's like "Oh come on, I'm missing Pointless". That's why Star Wars is the best documentary ever. Darth Vader is horrible and Luke Skywalker is good. Anybody who is on Darth Vader's side is therefore horrible and anyone on Luke Skywalker's side is good. Why can't the world just be like Star Wars? But that was a simpler time back then and we won't see their like again.

Hopefully soon the barbaric atrocities in Syria, Uganda and throughout the world will be over and we will have wiped evil from our planet. Until then I'm always on the good side because I'm a good person. Whose side are you on, my young Padawan?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1260820 2012-02-07T16:02:06-05:00 2012-04-08T05:12:01-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
This week M.I.A has caused controversy by raising her middle finger in an act of Rock and Roll defiance as she performed at one of the most commercially driven events on the planet, alongside serial adopter Madonna. Is she Rock and Roll? Perhaps the greatest Rock and Roll performance has been John Lydon's career. First he sucked in millions of gullible, disaffected followers who felt a collective belonging through his anarchic songs in The Sex Pistols only to make fools of them by fulfilling his true ambition by taking part in a reality show and selling butter. That's Rock and Roll.

Is Iggy Pop Rock and Roll because he doesn't wear a top or is it because he chose insurance?

Bill Hicks isn't Rock and Roll because although he said 'if anyone here is in marketing or advertising kill yourself...rid the world of your evil fucking presence' he didn't see the day when marketers no longer grouped everything on the planet according to its commercial value. Instead he died young, of cancer, standing by everything he believed in. Not a hint of doing the exact opposite of what he stood for. What a loser.

Thich Quang Duc isn't Rock and Roll because, despite his self-immolation as a means of protest against the persecution of Buddhists by the U.S. backed South Vietnamese Roman Catholic Government, he died and didn't make any money out of the eventual mass circulation of his picture including the cover of Rage Against The Machine's eponymous debut album. He's an idiot.

Kurt Cobain is Rock and Roll though because he had the forethought to know that the best way to combat fame and all the trappings that come with it is to kill yourself and elevate your status to that of mysticism and ensure you are one of the highest-earning dead celebrities.

I have always wanted to be Rock and Roll; that feeling of sticking two fingers up to those who try to bully, boss and belittle you. Now I know that Rock and Roll is hypocritical, I know it's something I can achieve. I can take inspiration from the career of Ben Elton and know that his stance on racism, misogyny, xenophobia and homophobia were all meaningless props that were traded to perpetuate his own career. Rock and Roll is where I can flash everyone with the promise of better things to come, only to reveal myself hung like a very cold six month boy.

Rock and Roll is selling out, it's hypocritical, and it's about going against everything that you said you believed in for the glamour of prestige and wealth. So things are looking up because we can all do that. We are all Rock and Roll stars.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1245286 2012-01-31T17:25:18-05:00 2012-04-01T05:12:01-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
Big-eared adulterer Andrew Marr has recorded a documentary to mark the event in which he talks to a cavalcade of fawning fops about their admiration for Liz. In an article in the Radio Times, Marr remarks "Prince Harry reflects on her ability to turn up." It is well-known that throughout the evolutionary timeline turning up has been paramount to our existence. Whenever the winds of change have swept through the broad sunlit uplands of human life it was those who had the decency to turn up that prospered.

No "I'm running a bit late" or "something has come up", it was those who were able to say I'll be there at this time and then, when that time came about, they moved from the place they were to the place that they said they would be. If you can do it by inheriting an outdated and privileged position of outrageous wealth simply on the grounds that you were a sperm in the nut sack of a member of a family that allows you servants to transport you and wait on your every beck and call, then you've cracked it as a monarch.

I turned up the other day only to find that I had gotten there an hour late. This renders me useless and I would hope, for the sake of human kind, that I am diluted from the gene pool. I am worthless and don't deserve to breathe the same oxygen as those who overcome everything that is put in front of them, usually by a footman, so realising the heady heights of punctuality.

In order to ensure I do not hold back the human race anymore I have decided to have a vasectomy. It would be completely irresponsible of me to bring into this world a child that would have such brazen disregard for the temporal position of events. I urge anyone reading this who has ever been late or early, both of them equally despicable, to take a long hard look at yourself.

Bob Dylan once wrote The Times They Are a-Changin' which despite popular belief wasn't about a changing of the guard from The Establishment and its autocratic and imperialistic dogma. In fact it was a thoughtful and cautionary limerick about how the transitory present is constantly changing and therefore one must stay abreast of what the time is in order to fulfil their turning-up duties.

I am petitioning for a cull of all those that share a sinful life of sloth. Hopefully with your help we can have people like me, "non turner-uppers" (I'm coining the phrase), destroyed and the Queen can get on with turning up to things without those of us giving her a bad name with our tardiness. It would be nice to get it televised like the Royal Wedding so the Queen can greet the blood-thirsty mob, promptly of course, from the balcony of Buckingham Palace as they cock their guns both in anticipation of our arrival and as a sign of support for our non-elected head of state. I'll get on to David Dimbleby to see if he can commentate, he loves a royal event.

In the meantime, enjoy Monday's veneration of Britain and The Commonwealth's premier timekeeper. Don't be late.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1229162 2012-01-24T16:42:32-05:00 2012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
I don't believe in God but millions of people do and they might be right. There is also no question that people should be allowed to believe in whatever faith they wish to follow and I will always argue for their right to do so. Likewise, however, I should be allowed the freedom to question, criticise and mock their faith with a view to dismantling it. I will acknowledge their beliefs but why should I respect them? How can I respect something that treats women as unequal? How can I respect something that tells men and women who they can love? How can I respect something that denies women the freedom to choose whether to have an abortion or not? How can I respect something that advocates the death of anyone who satirises or questions their beliefs? How can I respect an institution that tries to cover up the rape and torture of orphans in church run schools from across the world? How can I respect an institution that has done more to spread the AIDS virus than any other? How can I respect an institution that demands infant mutilation?

The majority of religious rhetoric seems not to be about the sacred and numinous but more about anathema. The view that in order to have a moral framework we must first believe in the divine arrests common moral standards from the public and makes it property of faith. This certainty of belief undermines our humanity by denying human choice. To take away someone's ability to choose takes away the very essence of their being. We have the imagination and intelligence to carve out a life for ourselves, rather than in the image of someone else, by making our own choices, both good and bad. The view that a woman cannot choose to have an abortion after being raped because it is a gift from God is nauseating. To express it with such prelapsarian naivety as to 'make the best out of a bad situation' is nauseatingly vile.

I have no quarrel with individual, pious and devout members of whatever faith. For the majority it is a peaceful, placid and personal relationship with their creator. However, it is when religion exerts itself onto the lives of others that it exposes itself as being self-serving and an enemy of freedom of speech. Events this week at the Jaipur Literary Festival in India showed that the vitriolic hate aimed at Salman Rushdie which first emerged in 1988, some 24 years ago, is still as potent today as it was then. Of course people can demonstrate democratically against something that they don't agree with, that's perfectly acceptable.

However, threatening violence and murder is not democratic but cowardly and shameful. The fact that it had to be taken into account that children were present at the festival and therefore were in danger of the consequences of violence makes the threat even more egregious. A man having his life threatened for daring to appear on a video screen whilst he sits thousands of miles away seems preposterous but it is a fact that some parts of human existence remain rooted in archaic endeavour. Amongst the backdrop of some of the most fascinating human exploration into our existence being carried out at CERN today, there are still people who want to render diversity, knowledge and curiosity as impotent, all in the name of blasphemy.

Why? If God exists then surely religion shouldn't have to defend itself. Whatever the religion, it is either true or it is not. If it exists, then God doesn't need protecting. Religion should stand or fall by that premise and not deny anyone their voice if they choose to question or not believe in it. I want to stand up against this religious bullying as much for my despair at people being manipulated by religion but also because of my absolute faith in the capability of the human race.

We are capable of incomprehensible greatness as well as fantastic evil. We can search the outer reaches of the universe and help cure some of the most destructive diseases as well as kill each other and allow Jeremy Kyle to have a career. And we are responsible for both. Don't let religion tell you that all that is great in the world is the work of God and all that is evil is the work of Man. The power is within us, not a totalitarian figure. We are capable of anything, both good and evil as Rick 'best out of a bad situation' Santorum has shown.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1211681 2012-01-17T18:07:19-05:00 2012-03-18T05:12:01-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
Now everyone loves the telly, don't they? Ask anyone if they want to read the erudite and brilliantly illuminating collection of Christopher Hitchens essay's, Arguably or watch a man, who looks increasingly like a lion, watch other people open some boxes whilst an audience watches and you'll get the same answer every time. However there must come a time when this interminable festival of opening boxes and watching will cease to be.

What do we want from the telly; colours, shapes, sounds, movement, sometimes we're greedy and we want them all at once. Perhaps we want nothing at? I despise TV that is lifeless, packed with nothingness wrapped around a hollow shell of emptiness like a Coldplay song. When it is presented amongst the backdrop of the worst economic climate for decades it feels like a Coldplay duet with Dido.

I understand that the economic climate makes it difficult to open up more avenues for new writers. There is only so much money in the world to record the 300 sweeping helicopter shots of Jeremy Clarkson being spontaneously racist in a car so expensive that 90% of the Top Gear demographic wouldn't be able to afford it. However there is surely some change leftover to help establish more avenues for new writers.

Yes times are hard and money is tight but if there is talk of the Queen getting a new yacht then I'd like to see some new shows on the box with new voices. The last daring and funny show I saw on the telly was The Trip and that was broadcast so long ago Wayne Rooney was bald. Maybe the range of repeats is reflective of the national psyche not wanting to take too many risks. However I would argue that when things seem a little depressing and we're all feeling glum then surely being surprised by the new and the different would cheer us up. As Del used to hilariously say over and over again "he who dares, wins."
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1197796 2012-01-10T18:06:36-05:00 2012-03-11T05:12:01-04:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
Are we a tolerant, liberal country where we are all grown-ups and people are free to speak their mind? Or are we an easily offended, reactionary country where any perceived difference from "traditional" Britain is taken as a regression in society and as a result we have to suffer Jeremy Kyle's withered face spewing out his self-righteous rhetoric at divs, like diarrhoea-afflicted festival goers shitting into one of those big holes in the ground? Read the Daily Mail and we're the latter; thankfully though not everyone reads the Daily Mail, either through well-reasoned choice or by having enough forethought to be illiterate.

One person's view of Britain may be unrecognisable to someone else. Which is a very good thing too because if everyone went around thinking Britain was about Duran Duran songs then we'd be fucked. Britain cannot be classified as one thing or the other. I personally think we have a pretty good record in this country of standing up to bullies to ensure the freedom and dignity of civilians around the world. Ask Stephen Lawrence's parents and I'm sure you'll get a different answer, and rightly so.

Last year's riots may have people believing that Britain had turned into a post apocalyptic hell where looters had taken over the country as they clambered over each other like feral rats through a sewer, desperate to get their hands on the latest "stuff". Or if they saw the news the next day it may be about the impromptu clean up missions organised on Twitter, a demonstration of communities pulling together to restore harmony amongst the rubble left behind by wanton destruction. But then again Boris did turn up so it may have led many to believe that Britain is a series of disconnected and bizarre sentences, bad teeth and posh accents. And I'm certain no one has ever thought of Britain in those terms.

Identity isn't a fixed notion: its borders and parameters are constantly changing. The Britain I was born into is different from the Britain I live in today. It is common for people to fear change and look back on their past with affection compared to the alien and disconnected society they find themselves in now. I for one think there are no longer any programmes of the standard of Howard's Way on TV and I do feel that has been to the detriment of the country. Therefore what it is to be British is indefinable. It is a question I wish I hadn't set myself as I wouldn't have written this brief and poorly structured foray in British identity only to come to the conclusion that identity is a personal thing.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1180553 2012-01-03T05:34:10-05:00 2012-03-04T05:12:01-05:00

Tom Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carter/
Now I have no problem with drawing upon the words of others to help contextualise and articulate a point of view or feeling, if the loveable hate-filled rogues on Youtube forums can do it then anyone can. Indeed I have absolutely no problem with those who see a New Year as an opportunity to set themselves goals and strive to achieve them, in fact I encourage it. However, in the last 48 hours I have read enough quotes on that internet to last me the year. What's even more obtuse is that they are simply thrown out there without any thought or reasoning like one of those youths throwing his love seed about with all the love of a Krankie. They are relegated from the marvellous and the purposeful to an unbearable ennui. Simply typing out a quote and having it as your "Status" doesn't make you an intelligent, sensitive and inspirational person it makes you skilled in the art of copy and paste.

Anyone can type something. I've got nieces who aren't as old as some of my pants that can type something. If I gave them a quote and said type that then within five minutes I could have a famous inspirational quote from Confucius as my status, except it will have been written by someone who shit their pants and covered the keyboard in snot whilst they did it. This unctuous and odious world of self-help and self-empowerment has made it easier for people to repeat something someone else has written and pass it off as help. I can make you rich and all you have to do is buy my book for £10; great I'm already a tenner down.

The quote is a precious thing and when used in context to illuminate a point or feeling can be the most powerful thing in language. However when it is used by someone who is crying because the sun came up again then it is reduced to an anaemic and feeble series of letters. You are a brilliant human being who is capable of fantastic feats and you should make the most of every year. You just don't need someone with the username Bendybollocks34 from Torquay regurgitating something that they think sounds clever to tell you that. Happy New Year!]]>