Boring. String 'im up

Here's what I don't get about nutters who go about wasting innocent sandal wearers sleeping in their tents at hummus eating camp; what really is the moral objection to a punishment for them that is conclusive and capital in nature?

The argument against the death penalty is usually that every human life is sacred and something about how it's not our place to take a life as it's playing God or some such bull cookies.

If some sandal and cardigan wearer can declare that a serial killer's life is sacred why can't I declare his life not be in the least bit sacred and entirely waste-able? It's just opinion. As for playing God, what if you don't believe in God?

You can't play at God if you don't believe in him. And anyway, by protecting this man's life, by ring-fencing him possibly at the expense of further lives down the road when he gets out of prison, isn't that playing God? Who are you to protect this man at the expense of another slaughter of young budding Socialists later on?

Let's be clear here, I'm the last person to get emotional about the plight of socialists. I have to confess I was more emotional when Arsenal gave up a four goal lead against Newcastle last season than when I heard about this massacre.

The fewer Socialists the better I always say, but I don't think those kids deserved to be slaughtered by a maniac, who as a consequence of only seeing fourteen hours of sunlight a year, has decided they all must die because they are responsible for Norway being inundated with dangerous Muslims.

Life isn't sacred. That was a fair enough conclusion to come to say about two hundred years ago, but I think by now we've progressed beyond the contradictory wisdom of scripture and we can feel it's OK now to feel in order to be respected and for your life to be worth something you ought to really be contributing to society.

Amy Winehouse for example was a crazy woman who chose a diet of heroine and vodka. She wasn't ill, she didn't have cancer. Addiction is not an illness, ask any properly qualified pathologist. Her life was a voluntary concession to really dangerous chemicals. That makes her death not a tragedy but actually quite a selfish indulgence.

Andres Behring Breivik is a violent danger to us all. He chose to shoot about 100 people because he could and because he felt he was justified. So it would be a little hypocritical of him to complain if the society he so harmed decided to kill him also because they could and they felt justified.

Living in a world where everything has to be tolerated is bullshit - where everyone is a victim somehow and no one is responsible for their own actions is a cop out. This idea of tolerance is not morally courageous it's really just cowardice. It's condescending and dangerous.

If no one is going to have the balls to tell people they're wrong how are we ever to climb out of this cesspool of a world? If we're to continue to allow pseudo-academic rhubarb munchers to condescend to us as if we're children about how we need to try and understand each other, I give our species no more than three or four more generations.

Of course as we've established on the blog already, all of this is academic as within about ten years we'll have all starved to death in the post economic apocalypse that the media is still ignoring in preference of the Amy Winehouse thing.
We're doomed.

It is for this reason we can forgive Amy Winehouse for her self-centred demise. It's everyman woman and beast for him/her/itself. After you with the crack pipe Amy. Good luck everyone.