Seriously, have you even read the Ten Commandments?

They're probably the most important part of the Old Testament since they're the only part which God actually wrote himself. Remember that? Moses climbs Mount Sinai and comes back with God's tablets. These ten rules are literally handed down to mankind by the creator of the universe. And what do they say?

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Is it just me or does this seem like a massive concession? To me this says "there are other gods, but you should ignore them and worship me". Can it be read any other way? How can believers gloss over this? And to put this at #1 really is to betray the man-made characteristics of this racket. "First and foremost, don't follow any other religion. Listen to us."

2) Thou shalt not make graven images. Really? Number 2? If you were to write a list of rules that a billion people were going to take seriously would you really put this second? Surely there are more important messages to convey like "do not abuse children", "do not commit rape", "do not commit genocide", "do not take slaves". These aren't mentioned though because it would mean reducing the Old Testament to Genesis and ending it there.

3) Don't use the Lord's name in vain. What this means is that you shouldn't use the word "God" unless you're actually referring to him. What relevance this has to anybody is beyond me, but it has extended so far that there are networks in America which forbid the use of the words "god damn" or "Jesus Christ" as expletives.

4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. This seems like a pretty innocent commandment at first. Nobody would seriously be punished for breaking this rule, would they? If you read on though somebody is later stoned to death for collecting wood in a forest. You just try finding a Christian who would be happier to bleed out than let a surgeon suture him on a Sunday.

5) Honour your mother and father. In other words, obey. Unconditionally. Surrender your will and don't question authority. It's worth mentioning at this point that given the importance of this Decalogue to Christians, especially considering all of the (alleged) moral guidance within, the first half of the list offers no advice for how to live a generous, wholesome or even good life.

6) Thou shalt not kill. Finally, something we all agree on. The ironic thing is that despite the claims that we get our morals from the Bible, the wandering Jews of the desert couldn't have made it all the way to Mount Sinai if they didn't already know not to kill one another. Unless they killed each other very sporadically until Moses came back and said "I've just gotten word that you need to cut that shit out". Plausible but incredibly insulting.

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. This is almost a good rule but it could be improved upon if it were made simpler and reduced to "always be faithful". But whatever, it's something we can agree on at least. Saying that though, this isn't a law. We don't jail people for cheating on their spouses. They don't even get community service. So far the only commandment we enforce as law is the "do not kill" regulation. And even that has exceptions.

8) Do not steal. Another law. Stealing is bad and should be discouraged. I still think we could lump the this together with the previous one though: "always be honest and faithful".

9) Do not bear false witness. Again this is a way of stretching "always be honest" out to three rules. You'd think that instead of this meaningless filler something important could be written; "thou shalt not kidnap children", for example.

10) Thou shalt not covet your neighbour's wife, nor her ass, nor her ox, nor her house, or slave etc. This is the final commandment and in my opinion it's the worst. This is the very definition of thought crime. This doesn't forbid you from stealing a man's possessions it forbids you from even thinking about it. To say that you can be convicted of crimes while you sleep—we know you're guilty, we know you at least considered it—is the very definition of totalitarianism and it's what George Orwell meant when he said that all dictatorships were theocratic.

That these rules are seriously considered as moral guidelines and meaningful laws to be obeyed and respected is ludicrous. Unfortunately in this country we can't reject our Church of England roots; the Queen is the head of the church and we have to pay for that. At least in America they have a document saying that their government must be separate from their churches and that's why the Supreme Court has ruled against the monument being inside the courthouse. Although, in our defence...

"You're not much of a consumer, are you Phil? You don't really buy much", this person said.
"Yeah I know," I replied, "advertisements are wasted on me. Although there was one thing recently which I was really interested in buying; a poster, it was."
"Really?" was the response.
"Yeah, it was..." I paused, failing to find the words. "Well it's difficult to describe. Picture... In fact, no, I have the book with me." I reached in to my bag and produced a book I had been reading. It was Richard Dawkins' latest. I flipped through the pages, skating past diagrams of the vagus nerve, mammalian skeletons and one candid photo of an adult dugong. I quickly found my poster. "This thing is called the Hillis Plot. Basically it's a diagram showing our genetic relatedness to all the other species of life on Earth, right back to the first instance of life."

I pointed at the diagram "here we are and over here would be other apes, here would be mammals like dogs and you can see, for instance, that we're more closely related to fungi then we are to bacteria. And this is just about 3,000 species, nowhere near the tens of millions we know about."

I looked up expecting to see the same wide-eyed intrigue that grabbed me when I first saw the diagram. Instead I saw something resembling disappointment. "Wow, that's such a waste," said my friend.
Of course, I was confused; "what do you mean?"
"I think that for somebody as smart and enthusiastic as you to choose a simple life with a simple job over something that used all of your potential is a waste."

Earlier in our conversation, when asked what I'd like from the future, I admitted that a job like the one I had in the school would be fine. "It was easy, I was great at it and I had a laugh." I said that if it paid a little better then it would be perfect. As it turns out, some people think you're obligated to dream of a life which most challenges your skills. Not a lot more was said on this subject, but I've been thinking about it.

Since this conversation I've asked others about the issue. Half of the people think that a person should take a job which suitably taxed their abilities while the other half said that personal happiness trumped social obligation. I've always been with the second group. I thought most people would be. Instead it seems a lot of people think you owe it to yourself, or other people, to use every iota of knowledge and experience you've carved for yourself.

My thoughts have always been the same though. Even from a young age, when people asked what I wanted to be when I was older, I always thought the same thing: happy. And what if you don't need your degree for that? What if you can get that from your blue-collar colleagues and not from your pursuit to nail Cold Fusion?

Should your happiness mean less to you if every day isn't a struggle? Why are people so eager to tell you what you should do with your life? Part of me thinks it's down to vicariousness but even that makes only hypothetical sense. Either way, I think that once you've formed your own opinion there's not much point in labouring on about it. It will change by itself or it won't. I think I'm going to go with my instincts in the meantime.

Incidentally, the most common career I'm told by other people that I should have is one as an educator. Apparently I am both gifted with enthusiasm about certain subjects and an ability to explain. If I liked talking to groups or could command respect of strangers then it would be almost perfect.

Things are quite nice around the house too. Sam just shot a music video for InMe, Jason has begun a tawdry affair with some northern hottie and Pete just bought a Lotus. Yep, these are the good times.

Being men, the roomies and I enjoy talking about beautiful women. These conversations often start while watching TV/films and can spiral in to long discussions. Lately though it seems like we're talking more and more about older women. I think this is a symptom of getting older and it's surely the best one so far.

I'm not talking about the obvious women either; not just Liz Hurley (44), Monica Bellucci (45) or Salma Hayek (43).

I'm talking about Stacey from House (53), hell, even Cuddy (43). How about Nicolas Sarkozy's wife: the First Lady of France (42). Or there's Elaine from Seinfeld (49!)

This is definitely the best thing about getting older. I remember being younger and thinking a woman was instantly unattractive if there was a suggestion she might be over 30. Now though there's no difference to me between a hot 25 year old and a hot 39 year old. Except maybe the odds of her returning my calls.

Being a proud Surrey boy he began to read the discussions contained within. Unfortunately though this has just made it more difficult for him to feel happy about his roots. Within the group were approximately 80,000 hateful and ignorant people offering their own takes on why the North of England can suck it. There were also, amusingly enough, a few American visitors who had completely missed the point by chiming in about how the South "will rise again".

As Jason read through the misguided vitriols, I decided to read the opposing group, "1,000 reasons the North is Better than the South". Oddly enough it made me miss home. And not because the group was cynical and combative; just because it was so friendly.

Most of the reasons the South is superior could be reduced to the following:

• "I live here!"
• London is in the South.
• We don't have stupid accents.
• Northerners are complete wankers.

These were about the most common, with other more ludicrous claims like "we have fitter girls" and "it's warmer".

The majority were either completely irrelevant, refutable or just a general attack on the North of England. The reasons in the Northern group however were much quainter. Four out of every five reasons were either about food, (Yorkshire puddings, Wigan pies, chippies, gravy and Hotpot), Cheryl Cole, our senses of humour or our friendly demeanours.

It really was quite lovely. And I think it's true. I've never lived down south, so I can't compare, but when contrasting the two groups there was only one group of people with whom I'd prefer to associate myself. Even Jason, proud as he is of his home, was forced to leave the group in disgust.

To top it all off there were 1.5 times as many people in the Northern group than the Southern. This means that for every two people that think the North of England is an utter shit-hole, three people have nothing but nice things to say about it.

This entire ordeal has led Jason and me to two conclusions. Firstly, Cheryl Cole is definitely sexy. Secondly, there should be a standardised intelligence test that people are required to pass before they're allowed to publish any content on the Internet, including stupid claims that the North of England never experienced the Industrial Revolution—it was started up North—or that there are no double-decker buses north of Watford.

I'll probably flesh out the first conclusion in another blog entry at a later date.

It's considerably less than my mid-semester exam. I got 77%, which is still considered really good by my tutors but it seems unacceptable by my own standards. The average result from the January exam was 50%, meaning I out-performed the average person on both my mid-semester and January exams by 150%.

This is a small consolation, at least.

Some friend became a fan of "When blue Smarties came back!"
Another friend joined the group "I take showers naked!!"
Last friend joined the group "Can this colostomy bag get more fans than Robert Mugabe?!"

A while back I went through my bloated friends-list and deleted 70% of the token additions in an effort to combat this. It hasn't helped. It seems that even the people I like are fascinated with broadcasting every minute detail of their life, from the fact that they "lol'd when [they] saw this seal" to the declaration that "it is snowing up north!!"

I know it seems wildly ironic for me of all people to complain about raging egocentrism—particularly as I do it from my soapbox—but I think I can say without contradiction that the people whose formative years fell in the last decade—people whose ages range from 10 and 20 years old—really could come to be known as Generation Me, Me, Me.

I think when I have children I'm going to teach them that I love them and that I care about them, but that doesn't mean necessarily that anybody else does.

Nobody could argue that this is because the splendour of the stars cannot compete with the inane ramblings of fraudulent fortune-tellers or swindling astrologists. No, the problem is us. Our under-evolved mammalian brains have left us ill-prepared to cope with the infancy of our species.

We're afraid of the dark, we're afraid of each other and we're afraid to die. So we're superstitious. And to keep ourselves from descending in to helpless hysteria we make up anything and everything we can to tell ourselves that things will be all right, even if it means engaging in wishful thinking.

What else could you call the idea that Pluto is looking out for you? Or that there's no need to be afraid because you have Capricorn rising? Or that you are absolved of personal responsibility because your actions are governed by celestial bodies orbiting about the Sun? These kinds of thoughts are the reasons religions arise. The only ingredient missing is the suggestion that you could prevent famine or tsunamis by sacrificing a child to the almighty power of Neptune.

I can't believe that parents want their children to grow up to believe in magic or to engage in wishful thinking. I think people would want their children to think critically, to be sceptical and to challenge conventional wisdom. The sooner more people can do this—and shirk these silly traditions—the better we'll all be.

I created the page because I was thinking of for how long my site has been active and I wanted to be able to see some figures. I'm still undecided about the location and the nature of the link—they may both change at some point—and I'm sure I'll be changing the amount of statistics the page offers.

Feel free to look over the figures if you're interested. I for one was surprised to learn that I've written an average of one entry every three days for the last three years running. Poor quality or not, that is some commitment.

It's practically the best idea in the world. And it's almost like drinking a vial of bacteria, except it's chocolate milk. Sam brought up a good point too:

Sam: There are no artificial sweeteners, no artificial colours and no added preservatives. It pretty much counts towards our five a day.
Phil: Yeah, as minus two maybe.

Think it through: wouldn't your mornings be improved by chocolate milk? Of course they would.