E is for Eddie, L is for Loser (Eddie Izzard Talking Politics, Bloomsbury Theatre, 27th April 2009)

Long winded title so apologies.

E is for Eddie -

Went to see Eddie Izzard Tonight at the Bloomsbury Theatre in Euston, London. Stopped over at the Bree Louise for a pint and half.

Eddie was joined by Ed Balls MP (Minister for Education) and Tessa Jowell MP (Minister for Sport, Arts and Culture). It was a political question time with Eddie playing the host role.

Only difference being there wasn't anything negative, except your normal Tory/Cameron political bashing.

Nothing really of note - Europe and the Olympics were the big talking points. Eddie is very passionate about Labour politics and Europeanisation that he had said he intends to stand for public office - I'd like to see him run against Boris.

Twitter was also mentioned - Ed Balls didn't quite get it, and one Tweeter has commented that Eddie should run against Boris Johnson for Mayor of London - and see the clown get beat by a real comedian.

Audio of Eddie Talking Politics here (my AudioBoo) - you can hear me laugh at one point!

Picture Gallery:

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4

L is for Loser

Other than that, at some point between Bloomsbury and Euston I noticed I had lost my wallet - rediscovered it back at the Theatre!

On top of that, I lost my keys, too.

E is for Eddie; L is for Lucas - L is for Loser...

Essays and Referencing

It's madness in my poor, little, insignificant life right now. Well, insignificant to the point I am only one person and there's much worse out there.

But, as I finish typing a political essay on the Attlee Governments and Democratic Socialism, I've realized a real bugbear when it comes to essays - necessary though annoying.

As you probably guessed from the title - it's referencing and bibliography.

As boring as it is, it is also tedious as those academics among you will realize. To help with the speed of my essays, I have merely referenced in the text shorthand (I use Harvard), and now I need to shift through and write them out, long hand and get my bibliography set up.

With this being one of 4 essays due in in the next 10 days, I have also made a similar (mistake) approach to one of my essays due in a week on Monday.

This coming Wednesday - Philosophy of Logic essay - I'm intrigued how this essay is going to turn out...

then a week on Monday:

Extended Essay [Politics] (which requires BINDING) I've not even started researching, never mind writing.
Germany Politics Essay (needs referencing properly)
UK Essay (just conclusion and referencing required)

So just 3,000 words for the Logic essay now, and a further 5,000 in me for the Extended Essay.

I am on a tight schedule to get all this done, so apologies for lack of interesting blogging in the meantime.

I do miss it. But I'm sure you understand.

Rant over.

Happy Good Friday?

Found this on my Feedly newsreader via Firefox which I found rather strange:



Happy Good Friday. It seems a bit strange, but I asked my dad, Fr Peter and he says its not a day of celebration as such but rather one of remembering. Quite right, too.

This Easter has seen a religious holiday getting all political over the football being shown on Easter Sunday - only ever happened 8 times, ever, in the past. For a country that is historically Christian, I do think that there is a point.

We should remember the Passion of Christ and Easter for specifically those reasons but also I think, for an atheist, who might not have any holidays, a compromise should be found: a religion of one is no less relevant than a religion shared by 6, 6 million or 6 billion.

Robert Bellah puts forward his argument of a 'Civil Religion in America' ; which we if accept this premise, can translate for many football fanatics that football is religion too, and the stadium is the church and the game is the service.

Should there be any clash of religions, (as ridiculous as football being a religion may seem to Catholics, Christians and vice-versa), what I propose is the art of compromise:

Whereby there is a clash, there are those that are religious, and watch their football too, and so both should be allowed in the spirit of things - but the football should be screened at a time that does not disrupt the Easter festivities. Where Setanta are showing the game at 1PM (kickoff at 2PM) - this does not allow most Evertonians travelling from Merseyside to get to the game on time where Christian services are likely to take place around 10:30AM. So I would argue the game should be kicked off at 4PM instead, to allow for Easter to go somewhat less disrupted, ample time to arrive for the game.

All this bleating might seem a bit crazy for some - it's impossible to please everybody. Still, this reminds me of an email my dad sent me on religious days for the atheist:

In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days.

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."

You got to love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Save the Coachmakers

Unfortunately I wasn't aware until it was on to be there, but I pledge my full support to the Save the Coachmakers campaign, getting local news coverage! See video below, my father set up the petition.





Please sign the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/coachmakers/

See the Coachmakers website at http://www.thecoachmakers.co.uk/

Think heritage. Think real ale. Think a friendly, community, thriving pub. Think, it actually is a pub in the truest sense of the word.

It should never go!

Britain is not 'broken', the media is.

Thanks to a reader, I have been alerted to the news that Alfie Patton is not the father, as was once suggested - see my blog here

It seems that there is barely any news anywhere on the subject, perhaps because its not so sexy now that the 'youngest father' in Britain is not really the father. It took a feedly search to find any news on the subject, and all I got was a blog. (and, by the way, my feedly RSS gets all the major UK news sources, shocking, really.)

So is this a surprise?

Not really. Perhaps the media don't like to admit they are wrong - the Sun will do anything to sell their newspapers, but not to damage their own credibility at publishing false stories. The Hillsborough disaster is a case in point - the author has never retracted his story.

Britain is not broken - the media is.

Sexual Ethics: Abortion and Condom Advertisments before the Watershed?

As I type, my mother is drawing up a petition against the news that the advertising agency are planning to air TV advertisements giving pregnancy advice before the 2100 watershed.

You can read the planned news here
You can read news on anti-abortion agency being against this proposal here.
And a heartwarming mother’s perspective on the blogosophere on the nature of abortion, here.

There are various positions we can argue from; for and against. The debate rages and comes to light in this blog in light of my own Catholic beliefs and my philosophical background. They are, it seems to be at odds and it is a very emotional issue. So, what’s the fuss about?

---

Against

The sanctity of life is a moral imperative for Catholics. It would be quiet controversial to suppose that murder is acceptable. Abortion and the morning-after pill equals murder. Condoms and the pill for contraceptive use prevents the possibility of life, the natural order of things. Abstinence is the answer - STIs are avoided and babies can be raised in a traditional, nuclear family.

---

For

The reality is different: STIs are on the increase, media sensationalization of sex and the acceptance of sexual promiscuity is clearly the problem and we must respect the rights of the mother and the social circumstances that lead to use of contraception and abortion methods. A last resort, is needed to prevent the breakdown of society and we must provide for the circumstances in abortion and condom use is sensible and necessary.

---

Conclusion

Speaking with my philosopher’s hat on, it is not disputed that abortion is abhorrent, the destruction of life. I would have to agree with BBC Mark Easton’s blog:

“What stops teen pregnancies: condoms or family meals? I suspect that the problem is more down to lifestyle than to lack of information.” [Read blog here]

This hits the nail on the head and fits into both arguments - the conservative, religious view and the liberal, pro-choice view. So what’s the answer?

The reality must be accepted - that we exist in a society where sex is apparent, and yet it seems that discussion of sex and sexual ethics is a ‘taboo subject’. It is not the place of government is legislate what is right and wrong on this personal issue, but some guidance and acceptance in the difference of opinions should allow people to make a rational choice. Perhaps this is too philosophical to contemplate, maybe no society can become one-dimensional in its moral directives. Yet if the education is there, condoms and abortions can be used for the more rational and acceptable means: Preventing spread of STIs, Family planning, abortion to protect the life and welfare of the mother and child. To resolve this dilemma of ‘what is right’ here is an age-old question that I cannot answer. Something to consider…

---

PS: You can read my personal opinion in the comments section here.

Why I won't vote Labour at Student Union Elections

The University of Manchester Student Union elections are on Tuesday 10th March until Thursday 12th March. You might ask, even the politically active among you - what the point is in voting at a Student Union election. There is a fundamental point. Without the student representatives at your student union, many things that happen during your time at University would not come to fruition - including the landmark (and extremely helpful from a personal standpoint), 24 hour opening library times at the University Library during examination periods. The hard work of these students working on your behalf benefits your own university education in more ways than one.

There is however, another point to make. Yes, it is an election, so you could be forgiven for getting all political at a time to exercise a democratic right to vote in such an election. But the work of the student union is about education, not politics. It is about pragmatics, about doing what is right and what is going to benefit your education the most. It is not a place for party politics and to choose a candidate on the basis of what political party society they have their endorsement. In the West Wing, Season 6 at the Democratic National Convention, candidate Matthew Santos argues: “Choose someone who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams” - much like Barack Obama in his campaign for ‘Change’ in 2008. That is what voting should really be about, in general elections and student union elections.

More importantly, we should reward the campaigns of those candidates that fight for the student cause: better tutor-student contact, better libraries, ‘friendlier’ student unions. Those that work hard to win your vote are the ones that deserve to win, not the ones that will get ‘block voters’ from those of political party societies.

Every vote counts in these kind of elections with such a small electorate, and even more so with the introduction of online voting. Like in a general election, the main political parties that appeal to their base and yet conquer the middle ground are usually the victors. In student elections, it is easy to vote for somebody because they are a ‘Labour candidate’, without knowing what they are actually going to do for you. Party affiliations in such elections are therefore merely cosmetic, and they are not important in the grand scheme of things.

This is why you should look at the greater picture - not by examining manifestos but knowing that who you vote for will do their hardest for you because they worked hard for your vote, and you know from a glance, what they are for. This is why I will be voting for Cat Taylor (pictured, above) for Humanities General Council Member (University of Manchester), among others. Not out of friendship but because she personally took the time to win my vote. Party ties are insignificant at such a personal and intimate election where change can happen. Your vote at your union, at your university, counts.

'Seize the Moment'

'Flash' Gordon Brown gave a speech to the US Congress calling for the US to seize the moment on the economy woes of our time.

Nick Robinson claims that this is not Brown's colgate moment with Obama, yet the Guardian calls it the crowning moment of Brown's political career.

Still with Brown's economic credentials, if the US actually listen to Brown, and do not vote for more protectionism and a 'buy American/made in America' clause, then maybe this influence of 'Brown knows' could hit home back here in the UK and thus the prophecy of Mandelson can be realized:

Labour can win a 4th term.

New Deals....

FDR's New Deal....

and now talk of a Brown/Obama New Deal....

so does that make it a B.O. New Deal?

I wonder....

National Health Service for America? (US Health Care)

The title, though far fatched, is a step in the right direction with Obama's intended reform of the American Health Care System.

In Michael Moore's filmn Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured and those who are covered are often victims of insurance companies. See Wikipedia entry if you have not seen the film, here.

As Justin Webb points out, it's been promised by Carter, Clinton, even Teddy Roosevelt.

The natural person for health secretary who I would have liked, though perhaps too radical for some Americans to contemplate after the scandal in the Clinton years would have been dear Hilary, now US Secretary of State.

Instead, Obama has plumped for Kathleen Sibelius, as his first choice Tom Daschle has been investigated over his tax activity.

Whatever, whoever is the face of healthcare reform in America's change administration, it is only natural to agree with Webb that paying $629 for"a day of education about diabetes" is indeed, madness.

This, I think beats any privatized-only medicine system argument in the United States considering the rings that the insurance companies will have you run around before they pay your hospital bills. Look at the UK system - you can have your choice of doctors here, where you can go for treatment: I myself am a good example - I travel 100+ miles for my orthopeadic surgery. And at the end of it all, is there really any difference between paying for medical insurance and paying a national health insurance tax?

It's still money spent. And the lesson to learn, is that you spend a lot less to get the treatment you want as well - even breast enlargement and sexual reassignment surgery are offered on the NHS, plus prescriptions. In America, you will pay a hell of a lot more to receive something that is a human right: access to medical care. There should never be a conflict over paying your doctor for treatment and their duty to the hippocratic oath, should there?

So what's next on my to do list?: Watch Sicko again...

Father at 13, Britain: "Anything goes"?

The Sun, with their super-duper exclusive, have belittled little Alfie Patton who is apparently, though this is not yet proven the father of a year. He is just 13 years old.

The Sun likes picking on people - I threw away one copy of the Sun away a few months away in disgust because their letters page included one reader who suggested we send all disabled people to "Poland". I took it as a Holocaust insult myself and if I could find said letter, I would. Unfortunately I would reduce that the average Sun reader are not all that enlightened. That particular sender of the letter and the author of this article, are a case in point.

Fairly they highlight the dangerous realities of teenage pregnancies - that the lad doesn't know the price of nappies (£10 should cover it, apparently...) - but then the author goes into insulting the lad that he looks 8 years old, and that his voice has yet to break.

The AP, much more neutral, do highlight the fact that there are many other potential fathers, not just Alfie.

The point isn't to prove by DNA who is the father or not, its the fact that the baby is cared for. Teenage pregancy or not, this is paramount. The biological father, the age of the alleged father and mother is not first priority.

The Anti-abortion agency LIFE have applauded that Abortion didn't take place, which I think takes a lot of courage, and admiration must go to the parents.

But it is time that the media stepped away from dramatizing and politicising the news - It is not ideal but to score cheap political points Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, calling it a case of a broken society where "anything goes", hardly helps matters and frankly is below the belt.

It should be left squarely between the respective family's shoulders and the relevant social services over the care of the baby. It's news, but its hardly front page.

If this is such a problem - perhaps we should be doing more to educate kids in school, give the GPs more of an educational role when it comes to teenage pregnancies and if at the end of the day, if the baby is kept at the consideration of all parties - it is something to admire and applaud, not to be scorned and scowled at because it doesn't fit in with conventional, conservate, nuclear-family ideals.

"Hey Teacher! Leave them kids alone..."

Shoes defend Human Rights!

Watch the video above. A protester threw a shoe at the Chinese PM at a lecture at Cambridge University, over China's Human Rights record and occupation of Tibet.

One poster on my Buddhism blog argues for saves Tibet....

Rightly there is a lot of people who are angry over China over their record, protests taking place during the Olympics, freedom of speech being notoriously restricted for native Chinese. For foreigners, it is increasingly difficult to go to visit China - it is not so straightforward, visas have to be applied for before travel.

The argument protesters will give is that giving these kind of people the space to speak freely, air their views justifies their actions and condones them.

The other is, of course is that without letting people like these speak out or treat them as individuals, equal to everyone else, we cannot see the error of our ways.

Personally I'd like to see a bit of both - I'd have seen the humor in the shoe hitting him in the face, but I also think diplomacy, discussion and debate will eventually help China turn the tide and establish a democracy one day. It will happen. Force tends to never really achieve anything - look at Iraq, Ireland, - the Second World War may have ended Fascism but it created the Cold War of Capitalism v Communism. Real change comes peacefully. We are no better than the people we criticize for their actions if we wish to restrict their views, rather than persuade them.

Illegitimate Presidency

The talking points surrounding the Inauguration meant that Barack Obama was NOT officially POTUS after taking the oath, as the wording was wrong. Now rectified, the agenda to close Guantanamo Bay has been ordered and the top US official post of Secretary of State has been confirmed : Hilary Rodham Clinton


Guantanamo Bay has been the main talking point, where Obama has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the "gulag of our times".

It seems pretty clear that there were some forces behind the Bush Administration's inability to close Guantanamo - the stubborness of one Dick Cheny (suprise, suprise), and the fact that the Bush administration started the operation in the first place. John Bellinger, an advisor to Condeleezza Rice, shares his regret and frustrations over Guantanamo.

It would appear, I would expect, that Obama has retook the oath before signing the executive decision to close the detention centre. Though the era of change has begun, I fear that this is all a little more than symbolism by the Obama Administration.

If a 'perfectly logical' plan to set up the centre in the first place descended into such controversy where torture was used and accepted, if Bellinger's words are to be beleived, then we cannot ignore this possibility again. I can't fathom personally how the religious neo-conservatives can resort to such violence and inhumane nature - surely God judges at the end of the day.

The infamous legacy that this leaves behind will remain with Bush administration though I do not feel that the anti-Americans out there will see it that way. There is a history of US interventionism and dare I say 'imperalism' over the course of the twentieth century.

Having argued for a new era of openness from his administration and the closure of Guantanamo Bay, this is a good start by the Obama administration. Torture is indefensible - there are moral imperatives and all humans have rights - not simply those kept to and enshrined by national constitutions, bills of rights. The BBC is even asking readers, "Do you agree that Guantanamo prison should be closed?"

The bottom line is, people would say anything under torture to make someone stop. Its an involuntary human reflex, like jerking your hand away from something that's too hot. How anyone can ever justify something like this is beyond me.

Bring Home the Revolution: Obama, Hope, Progress, Change

5,000 tickets sold in less than a minute for the Obama Inauguration. Barack Hussein Obama, legally president at noon on January 20th before he took the Presidential Oath of Office, has now ushered in a new era of 'remaking America', an era of change.

Gone is George W. Bush and the neo-cons - now...

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

There is an international appeal to the Obama presidency and the powerful role of the United States plays in our world. It is, a notion that we here can share at home in the United Kingdom of failed politics.




As a member of Republic, I received an email from Republic: Campaign for an Elected Head of State, an organisation that I have been a member of for the past year and attended their annual conference back in October. Graham Smith, campaign manager of Republic is calling for increased membership and the launch of 55 in 5 campaign - a drive to establish a elected British head of State within the next 5 years. This is all very optimistic, and the state of the Monarchy in Britain is pretty low after the recent revelations of Harry making racist remarks on a video and Prince Charles (heir apparent) stating he wants to play a more hands-on role.

It reminds me of the old joke about the optimist and the pessimist:

Pessimist says: "It can't get any worse."

But the optimist says:

"Oh yes it can!"

American politics, British politics, democracy in general is as I can see it: Broken. There is discontent in UK political circles over the question of Scottish Independence (for one), and the political apathy as of late puts the major parties in a dead heat. In the latest opinion polls, (9th January in the Sun/YouGov), Conservaties are 41% to Labour's 34% and Liberal Democrats at 15%. The 7 point gap is not too massive, and I would argue that the polls taken in the Sun has arguably a right wing bias anyway. There is a reality, I feel that there could well be a 'hung parliament' at election time. What does this mean for UK Politics?

It means that no party can command a majority and so it is to the Monarch's discretion who to ask to form a government. The Monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, an unelected official could decide the legislative destiny and direction of the UK Parliament in the 21st century. Though the monarchy, some might argue has little importance (all she ever does is wave, see video below...) This threat is very real and very damaging to the notion of democracy.



Barack Obama spoke in his inaugral address of "remaking America". America is a country founded on the back of a bill of rights, on democracy, freedom from religious and political tyranny with liberty and justice for all. With the inaugration of a African-American as president, it is a sign that the social attitudes of even a country like America are shifting. They have elected a liberal as a President. With a Muslim middle name. Who is also mixed race. If America can see the error of their ways after the Bush years then I would argue there is hope for humanity yet. The notion of 'remaking America' has a personal touch to the Americans but it has a wider and global appeal. It is not Americentric. Instead. it is about the ideals for which the United States stands for, and exporting that to the world. Freedom for all people, the French have done it (5 times), the Germans, the Italians... and it is about being able for the people to govern themselves - either by proxy in a centralist government with representatives or small communities of direct democracy.

Of all the systems of government, as Winston Churchill once remarked "Democracy is the best of the worst" (or something to that effect). The system we have in the United Kingdom is not, if there is a hung parliament, a democracy at all. If no majority is found in a general election and the Queen chooses of her own accord who to form a government, then this is clearly going against democratic principle that the people have freedom. Freedom means choice.

We do not have that, here at home, with the realities of the British Constitution.

In 'remaking America' - 'America' being a system of ideals rather than a singular identity (see Jonathon Freedland - "Bring Home the Revolution") - we can take the inspiring message of hope, of change, of progress, of Obama, to the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world.

Cast Lead

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been well documented, most recently in a 22-day conflict on what the Israeli's called "Operation Cast Lead", in order to give more security to the south.

The conflict in the Gaza and the dispute over the Holy Land (Israel) has been one of the big pressing issues since the Second World War.

The solution, as I see it, is something similar to the UN Partition Plan drawn up and approved in 1947 (see wiki entry here)

The UN Resolution is mentioned in the Israeli declaration of independence. I would argue though, if the Israeli's could do that, then why can't the Palestinians do the same? It is not a straightforward matter I admit, and something that hopefully will be addressed by Barack Obama. There are still fundamental problems in the region, and as one blogger argues, I'm sure come 21st January the phones in the White House will be ringing and an 'era of change' can begin.

The US, if it wishes to see itself as a higher moral authority and a beacon to the world, should look no further than their own constitution as a guide for their foreign policy. The continued supply of weapons and goods to Israel in a volatile region, does not agree with what the country was founded upon: freedom from tyranny, religious persecution and equality among men, including others. The failure to provide the Palestinians with a safe haven to live in only serves to cause further violence if they are not allowed to govern themselves as they wish to do so. Who is to say that the State of Israel will do a better job? The state is only state in the world that is Jewish, but there is no reason why religious tolerance, secularism and people from all other walks of life cannot live in harmony with one another.

It is time, I feel, to give the Palestinian people what they wish: a safe haven. I do not beleive that they are a terrorist group, though some of their actions are certainlly questionable and morally suspect. Perhaps history has taught us that the best form of revolution is passive resistance - the civil rights movement, Ghandi, among others - the sectarian violence in Ireland is still a big problem.

I am not arguing here that religion is a cause for violence, just an excuse. There is no reason why religious tolerance and freedom to worship whatever religion we wish (or not) cannot be practised. Permanent revolutions on this scale are never realised without some degree of bloodshed.

If as Josh Lyman in the West Wing argues:

"Islamic extremist is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity"....

then the State of Israel is the equivalent to Judaism.

Controversial, maybe? But fighting never solved anything. The UN too, needs to get its act together as well because failure to follow through such resolutions as I mentioned makes the point of a global diplomatic institution meaningless. A state for a religious people is a noble idea, but there are examples around the world - the UK, US, among others - why religions cannot be tolerated in a secular state. And I would like to pose the following question:

If the Israeli declaration of independence justifies itself on the UN resolution in 1947, the failure to realise the terms of the resolution makes the state of Israel illegal, surely?

In an ideal world, there would be one country, one state, governing the whole of Israel and Palestine and accepting Jews, Muslims, Christians as equals and there would be no violence. Something that the Tony Blair Fath Foundation hopes to acheive. It seems an impossibility considering the history. but I think it is change that we can beleive in.

Bush: Smart, Articulate, Successful

So said Bob Tuttle, US Ambassador to the United Kingdom in the Telegraph.

What successes, I wonder? The Iraq debacle will always be his 'legacy', in my mind, and the global crisis that has soured the end of his second term.

Not to mention he is the most unpopular outgoing President (ever). The sooner Obama is sworn in, just a few more days come Jan 20th, the better.






Can't say I blame Connecticut, to be honest.

One thing, if anything I agree with Tuttle on, is that we should keep close ties with our American cousins. It is important for them, and important for us. I wouldn't have thought Sarkozy and France, Merkel and Germany would be too comfortable with us having a major role in European Politics, particularly as we weren't one of the founders of the Rome Treaty in 1957.

That is not to say I am a Euro-skeptic, far from it. Recent events in the financial crisis have shown that we do have an important role to play in International Affairs. Even though it was a big gaffe for Brown saying he 'saved the world' regarding the financial crisis... Even though he seems to be leading the way.

The only thing is... I'm not so sure if Obama and Brown will be best of friends, even if Obama thinks Cameron is a 'lightweight'.

It will be interesting to see how relations and UK impact on the foreign stage will play out in the next decade.


-- Post From My iPhone

Era of Change

There are just 10 days until President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Tickets have been sold for a parade too. 5,000 of them.

Obama tickets 'sell in a minute'

Obama already faces an economic crisis and foreign policy challenges

Reserved seats for the US presidential inauguration parade have sold out within one minute of being put on sale, the ticket company has said.

More than 90% of the 5,000 seats available along the parade route in Washington were sold online.

The tickets cost $25 (£16) each - but some went on to reappear on internet sites at much higher prices.

Two million people are expected to crowd the National Mall as Barack Obama takes the oath of office on 20 January.

Most of the seats for the swearing-in ceremony are set aside for lawmakers, VIPs and diplomats.

The tickets that went on sale on Friday were for stands that line the route Mr Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, will take between the US Capitol and the White House.

Sales began at 1300 (1800 GMT) and went "blazingly fast", Albert Lopez, a spokesman for sales company Ticketmaster, said.

Linda Douglass, the chief spokeswoman for the inaugural committee, said the selling time was startling.

Work is already well underway for the event, set to draw huge crowds

"You just have to assume there must have been people sitting there at their computers ready to go when the clock struck one," she said.

Inauguration officials strongly disapproved of anyone seeking to profit from the sale of the ticket, she said - as tickets appeared at 10 times their original price on auction site eBay.

The committee says it wants to make Barack Obama's inauguration one of the most accessible in US history.

---

All I can say is.... Gone in Sixty Seconds. I'm sure the inaugural address is live on television, I'll post more when I find it. :)

Woolworths

In the news a lot lately, the financial credit crisis has affected UK retailer Woolworths forcing massive store closures.





Picture: Woolworths in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

A sad state for a company in trading for over 100 years. I hear other Woolworths are doing ok however, but still sad to see. Apparently there's news circulating on BBC and other news outlets that Tesco or some other big company may buy out most of the failing stores.

I would post links but it's not so easy on the iPhone...

This store in particular though might be bought out by Iceland, who would be particularly interested considering the city's redevelopment scheme.

-- Post From My iPhone

Sex, Cigarettes, Drink and Rock 'n' Roll

Young People ignore anti-binge drinking campaigns, apparently. Quite rightly so when you watch the advert above that the Home Office put out recently, as part of a £4 Million campaign to cut down on drinking. (See BBC Source)

"A study by Birmingham and Bath universities suggests the government must stop "demonising" young people in its attempts to promote safe drinking."

Quite rightly so. It seems to me that the P.C. brigade are shifting from tobacco to alcohol.
"Professor Isabelle Szmigin, who assisted the study, told the BBC: "For young people, drinking is very much a part of their social life but we feel that a lot of the government literature tends to present a picture of it being an individual responsibility rather than a social one.

"Young people do engage with the idea of responsible drinking but far more from the social side. They ensure there are designated drivers; people looking out for each other and that their friends are safe."

Ms Szmigin said shock tactic adverts did not always work and had risk of alienating the very people they were meant to target.

She said future government policies on alcohol-related harm needed to tackle cheap prices, how drinks were marketed but without being "heavy-handed" and recognising the role of alcohol as a "social glue"."

There are two things here I want to mention and comment on - the idea of alcohol as a 'social glue' and the comment on shock tactics.

Consider the recent smoking legislation - banned in most public places in the UK in 2007 and now there are some rather vile pictures on cigarette packets, like these:

Now, I'm sure if I could find the latest, (though the BBC search engine is rather crap) that the numbers of smokers (In Scotland at least) is as bad as it was 10 years ago, and it would appear that the anti-smoking legislation hasn't helped either.

I'd argue that the Swinging Sixties generation, (a decade known for its 'free love', drug taking, sex and liberal lifetstyles) and all the medical findings of recent times into the effects of drugs, alcohol and tobacco have led to this PC brigade and campaign against booze and cigarettes and sex. Some of our best loved, most famous people have fell ill to various related illnesses (George Best to alcohol, Freddie Mercury to AIDs, Warren Zevon of REM after a history of smoking).

But I think it is time, like Smzigin says, to stop demonising young people. Do we really want a straight-edge society? It's all well and good for the government to educate people into the dangers of smoking, drinking, etc. We can't be expected to just 'know' the dangers. But it is wrong to be shamed for lifestyle choices that do not correspond to the masses.

I'm a drinker, and a smoker. And in both cases I've made friends and had many good times through social smoking of cigarettes and going out to the clubs. Sometimes, yes, I've made an arse out of myself and some of these tales are legendary and still spoken of, years after the event. But that's part of the fun. I never committed any crime (other than the obvious there), just made an idiot out of myself. Making people grow up feeling they can't experience the same fun I have had or anybody older than me (I'm looking at the likes of Professor Smzigin, I'm sure she got pissed once in her young days at university), is not the way to go. We'd be making our children of this generation not really knowing how to have fun, scaring them so much that before we know it, kids won't be going out and getting themselves into trouble and learning better from the experience.

It's like hypocondria gone mad. If we molly-coddeled our babies, made sure they were always well so they never contracted an illness as small as chickenpox, we'd never have a good enough immune system in our later years to fight infection.

By the same token, not allowing people to make their own choices, not letting them embarass themselves in public to create social tales that last a lifetime and to learn from the experience - we would lose our ability to interact with each other and socialise. People need this outlet, not to live in a society of moral panic causing everyone to stay at home and play World of Warcraft instead.

By all means, teach us the dangers of life. Not patronize us and make us feel criminal for a life choice that we can choose to act out responsibly. Sex, Drugs, Drink, Alcohol, all can be experienced in life to an effect that is responsible. Don't try and take things away from us just because the media sensationalises everything. There is a place for legislation and a place for education. That is the goal:

Ensuring Responsibility, not inducing fear.

Viagra gives CIA intelligence on Afghan warlords

Apparently, the blue pill is getting warlords hard and sexually satisfying their polygamous lifestyle, reports the BBC in return to giving CIA Agents intelligence on Afghan warlords. (read here)

Well, it seems like everyone's a winner then!

In one case, a 60-year-old warlord with four wives was given four pills and four days later detailed Taleban movements in return for more.

....

In the case of the 60-year-old warlord - the head of a clan in southern Afghanistan who had not co-operated - operatives saw he had four younger wives.

The pills were explained and offered. Four days later the agents returned.

"He came up to us beaming," the Post quoted an agent as saying. "He said, 'You are a great man.'

Sex sells, it seems.

Brilliant.