Jokes. I see no harm in potentially offensive gags being told between CLOSE friends, but it surprises me when people post them publicly online or forward them to everyone in their address book, without stopping to think that some of the readers or recipients might be more sensitive than others about the subject matter.

I suppose it also depends on the kind of jobs the other people have. Anybody (/most professionals?) involved with death as part of their life (Doctors, Firemen, Police, Armed forces, etc) may have a kind of gallows humour as a defence mechanism, right? Indeed, soldiers sometimes refer to their fellow soldiers blown up in tanks as 'crispy critters' – gallows humour has its place. Other people are like this too, of course. Some use seriousness in the face of tragedy, others prefer dark humour; one way is not necessarily better than the other. Who was it who said that there is no topic so serious that you cannot make a joke out of it?

...I don’t know, but Orwell once said that a dirty joke is a sort of mental rebellion. Like a lot of rebellious acts it can feel rather good and quite liberating. Of course, I'll forgive a tasteless joke a lot if it's funny. It's when they’re tasteless and (in my humble little opinion) NOT funny that I get upset. There's a fine balance and it's hard to judge which side of the line you're falling on.

Case in point? Let's go all 70s Brit TV. 'Rising Damp'. Funny. A little close to the bone, but funny. 'Love Thy Neighbour'. Not funny. Just... crap. Racist and crap. 'Fawlty Towers' is another case in point, although there are one or two scenes that make me wince these days. Many times those shows that appear racist are very often poking fun at the racists themselves by way of the characters, but those that are too ignorant (or unintelligent) to know simply berate the programme, or indeed take on the reverse stance and cheer on the racists. Compare the previously mentioned 'Love Thy Neighbour' with 'Till Death Us Do Part' - poles apart.

Many people would say a joke has to be funny first and foremost. This is true. However they would also say whether it is in good taste or not is pretty much irrelevant. How many jokes rely on a punchline against a particular social group, nationality or type of person? I can see this point of view. If you start banning jokes on points of taste then you're pretty much outlawing humour, except for the pie in the face gag.

Possibly.

It's a bit harder on the internet because you don't know if people are laughing or not. My take is that if they laugh, any claims of being offended are null and void. I remember once somebody online wrote "On a forum, if MOST people laugh then it's tough luck to those who were offended, because who are they to be the guardians of our taste and humour?" I'm so torn between that. I see both sides of the argument. In part I agree, but when I was on a forum previously there were a few rather horrible cancer and AIDS jokes flying about (by people who really should have known better). Now, I knew there was a certain member on the site who'd been affected by cancer (in the family). I just take the viewpoint that sharing those 'jokes' publicly to a lot of people you don't know is wrong, wrong, wrong, as I stated in my very first paragraph. By all means private message them to each other and have a good giggle if that's the sort of thing you like doing, but don't inflict them on the rest of us when you have no idea who we really are or where we draw the line.

Does this blog entry come across as contradicting itself, somewhat? Ah well, we can't always have things clear-cut, hey?

When you don't see someone for a long, long time - or ever again - I reckon it's like climbing a steep hill. At first you miss them greatly and you really slog it out as you clamber up that slope. It leaves you perspiring and you wonder how you'll ever make it to that impossibly high top ground. It just seems too far away. Further and further you climb, until you forget how far you've come, and how much is left. Then it begins to level out and becomes so much easier, and you finally stand at the top. You can see down both sides, and you can see for miles and miles around you, and everything becomes instantly clear. You regain your breath and calm down, and then you make your way gently down the other side; the ordeal of what came before slowly fading from your mind, leaving only the surface memories. It's all about the journey.

I, Claudius was a BBC Television production from 1976, based on the two novels by Robert Graves, based in turn on Roman history interpreted by Suetonius, Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus, and Plutarch.

Here is a man, Claudius, who was born with various disabilities in an incredibly dangerous and unsteady world, and yet ultimately used those disabilities to his own advantage. It's always been my favourite television show and okay, this has as much to do with the wonderful, wonderful writing and superior acting than anything else, but the tale of Claudius has always inspired me.

Of course, both his deficiencies and the manner in which he exploited them are very different to my own problems, but I hope I too can make the most of what I've been given in life, for good and for bad.

How much of our attraction to the opposite sex* is purely primal and animalistic, as opposed to a more logical, rational personal preference? You hear of others mentioning love at first sight, but are they defining it correctly or are they talking more about lust – at least to begin with? After all, how can you love somebody without first talking to them; without knowing what they say and how they say it? No, as magical as 'love at first sight' seems it's really nothing more than a deep-routed urge based on initial appearance, that dates back to the dawn of man. Not very romantic, but hey. I suppose the promiscuous males and females amongst us are simply closer to our primitive forebears than the rest of us. It's doubtful many of them would be able to explain why they do what they do, and why they can’t seem to stay with one person. Indeed, for some it can be a very big, damaging problem. Those feelings of spreading our seed (or receiving it!) are built into us; they're biological, and it all boils down to our own individual ability of controlling those instinctive feelings. It's a very different world to our ancestors but human nature and desire stays the same.

Leaving aside feelings beyond our control, and moving onto personal preference... It'll come as no great shock when I announce we place too much emphasis on our bodies in this image-conscious, multi-media run world, and thus in turn other people's bodies. Clearly to begin with the focus was squarely on females, and despite the fact this is continuing (I'm thinking about make-up tips for pre-teen girls in magazines, as one example) it seems nowadays that it applies to both sexes, by and large. I have no qualms about people looking the best they can if it makes them feel better; more confident. By doing such a thing they’re making a statement about themselves – "This is who I am." However, it's when they’re entirely dismissed because of their natural appearance that's the problem. We are who we are. Our bodies are tall, small, thin, fat, lumpy, bumpy and overall individual. Unique, like our minds. To be outright rejected by others because we do not meet their 'standards' is a real low-point in human decency. Now, linking back to those animalistic attractions, of course you can't help who you take a fancy to, and you should never apologise because someone doesn’t 'do' it for you, looks-wise. It’s when you go past that, when you explore that person as a whole that you know how you feel, and that you’ve overcome your animal instincts and found... not this 'love at first sight' guff, but a more meaningful attraction. No snap judgements, no being shunned for some brainless blonde bimbo with big tits, but meaningful attraction. I don't think it’s a question of 'lowering your standards', but looking deeper and brushing past the initial caveman/woman urges.

*I'm not going to get into same-sex discussions in this particular blog entry. It's a large, complicated area and I don't think I'd do it justice.

Having lived in America for just over four months now (and having been married for three of those) I wanted to quickly reflect on my time here in the country.

I'm still hopelessly self-concious when it comes to my English accent, which is a problem when my wife and I go out for meals or pay for items. I find I either have to project loudly before anybody serves us, to 'get the accent in first', or I say very little, and the words I say are somewhat mangled into what I've decided is an American accent (but probably sounds like an extremely drunk Canadian one).

I am addicted to Devil Dogs. Twinkies... not so much.

America uses far lower volts than the UK does (120V vs 240V), which seems backwards. Google it sometime, though; it makes for an interesting read. Anyway, the main reason I bring this up is because it now takes twice as long to boil my electric kettle. You know, as an Englishman who has a love for his tea, this just won't do!

I miss my family back home but I'm coping admirably well, on the whole. Now, that's not to say I could survive without my wife, and I do speak to my mother once a week or so on the phone, but as a man who isn't the most independent out there I think I can look back with pride.

Although not where I live, Boston was, is, and will continue to be great. Travelling to get there is quick and easy, and whilst it's a large enough city it doesn't seem too bustling and over-crowded, like New York did (*shudder*). The subway is like the London tube, and it all just 'feels' right.

Way more bang for my buck here, be it restaurants, movies, gadgets or anything else. There is sales tax in this state (but not in New Hampshire!), but the UK was such a rip-off and everybody there knows it; this isn't a revelation.

Here's to the next four months! And the next...