Guadian: Netherlands moves toward total ban on Muslim veils

I for one am glad that we are finally banning body covering, for years the young and attractive have been forced by archaic social pressures to cover their bodies in an misguided attempt at achieving privacy and modesty. The very idea that we should cover ourselves to prevent another being aroused or disturbed, is totally unmerited. Many young women are forced to cover up because their fathers or boyfriends don't like blokes looking at them like that, well tough. In a free society we should be able to look at other peoples naked bodies whenever we want, and I am glad the Netherlands, the home of porn and prostitution, is leading the way to total nudity. All we need to do now is free ourselves of the "politcal correctness gone mad" anti-discrimination laws that prevent us from forcibly covering the fat and ugly. Jack Straw was right to call for the removal of clothing when people come to visit him, I know I would want my MP to be able to encourage vistors to overcome their primitive modesty and removing clothing that covers their natural beauty. I know Jack Straw claims he was more interested in the importance of body-language, but as he was at the home office and allowed unseen witnesses to give evidence, I am not sure of his motives, but I am sure that when he speaks on the phone he is always quick to ask what other person is wearing. Of course there are concerns about security, I can easily imagine how hard it is to identify a suicide bomber who wears a veil, so I fully support all attempts by our legislature to determine what others wear, it is what freedom is all about.

Guardian: Closed systems leave song buyers out in the cold

Music downloading is really an economics questions, and the record companies have yet to come to terms with the new market realties. People have a limited income, and an unlimited number of products on which to spend it. There is a particular issue with teenagers and older students, or recently employed former students. They have a huge desire for new music, as have all previous generations, but they have little money. In the old days we used to share tapes, now it is even easier thanks to the digital market. iTunes is a nice, simple and pleasant environment, but I can usually get the same music from Amazon for less money and have all the advantages of a DRM free, physical purchase. Plenty of other people have realised they can get the same thing free from a torrent with little effort. If I were head of a record company, I would be suggesting that we may need to change our profit per item, sell more items to maintain the same turnover and profit. Digital music has changed forever the perceived value of music, once a person has sampled the opportunities of music sharing with friends or over the internet, they are less likely to value a CD at £8 or more, and less so for an iTunes download. With legal downloads sites, such as emusic.com, now operating as low as 12-25p a track, then this places albums in £1- £2 bracket. This sort of price range completely kills CD purchases unless they are a fantastic products in themselves, and most CDs are dreadful. It is this low price range that make it worth being legal, and a true fan will always want to make sure the artists gets something, but real sharing will never go away. If record companies still want to sell a physical CD, then they had better make sure the product is worthy of purchase without the music!

Camera Phones

I always thought cameras in phones were a weird idea until I got one. I set out to get a good phone, but as they all had cameras I ended up with one. It turns out it's great, wherever I go I have a camera, I've never taken so many photos as I have since getting my Sony Ericsson S700i. I am about to upgrade and considering a K800i which includes a Cyber-shot™3.2 mega-pixel camera with flash. Actually its more the other way round, a camera that includes a phone. The best bit is it's free with a phone contract, here in the UK.

Delivered with Verve

Completing Coltrane

I had a complaint that Impulse had not released a Box Set of John Coltrane's studio sessions from his final years.
After some research, mainly conducted at The Jazz Discography Project, Wolf's Kompaktkiste and Dave Wild, I have found the following additions to the Impulse Box Set that I think complete the available Impulse sessions of John Coltrane.

The first album was Africa/Brass, the only one released prior to those from The Classic Quartet Set:


There were two other albums that were collaborations and so weren't included in the box set:


Meditations is the last album released during his lifetime:


The next contains the remaining tracks released during his lifetime, but not included in the box set:


Expression was actually conceived by Coltrane before his death but did not get a release until after:


The next few are studio sessions released as albums:


The final two are often ignored, and also hard to find as they contain material by John's wife Alice Coltrane, she also accompanies him on his tracks. Cosmic Music was not on the Impulse label, but released by Coltrane Music, however it was recorded during his last few years.


Now on to the live recordings!

Confluence

I noticed an interesting confluence of stories today.

Firstly I saw a tech-security expert suggesting we use anti-terror techniques to defeat terrorists, techniques that reduce the terror felt by the public.

Then I saw that 72% of people think the governments policies are making us less safe, and a virtually non-existent 1% think it is actually working and making us more safe.

A related comment from Imran Khan suggesting a change in tactics for the war on terror.

And finally, the news that Ryanair were to sue for loss of earnings due to the recent terror alerts.


What particularly struck me about the Ryanair story was that they felt they had a legal case they might win and that given my assumption that they are motivated by business needs, the fact that they don't think this will be bad publicity. It seems incredible that a company will attempt to show in law, that the governments anti-terror policy is ineffective, and perhaps even counter productive, but it seems that a change is gonna come, and the answer is blowin' in the wind.

WoT WoD

I saw this news report about Hizbullah using British made equipment, and it suggested that it may have been supplied to Iran as part of the War on Drugs. It struck me that there are a lot of similarities between the new War on Terror and the old War on Drugs, but with all the attention on the War on Terror I think we may have lost sight of the War on Drugs, so I thought I should check how that went. I'll start my investigation in Afghanistan, having been on the receiving end of a War on Drugs and a War on Terror it must be a very peaceful and drug free place by now.

New Releases

Some new releases I found in my letter box:

Carter Reforms

In an affluent society the only things to complain about are healthcare, education, taxation and crime. Sadly reduction in taxation is not compatible with an increase in spending in healthcare and education, which leaves crime as the obvious area to tackle; if crime were reduced then tax money spent on crime could be saved. The government has realised that reducing crime through increased policing and increasing the number of prisoners does not help reduce the tax bill, and reducing either of these is consider politically dangerous, so it must look for other areas of the the crime bill to reduce. This is where the Carter Reforms come in, they are the recommendations of Lord Carter for reform of the Legal Aid bill, politically they are a gift horse, but if we accept we should remember the fate of the Trojans.

Legal Aid is a gift horse because it is paid to lawyers, who everyone hates, to defend criminals, who are even more unpopular. So cutting the bill is a political winner, except this government being politicians saw even more of an opportunity. Cutting the bill could be done by paying less than they pay now, or at least holding the rates and let inflation take it's effect. This would mean the bill is still vulnerable to escalating crime, but that could be tackled elsewhere. However, the government saw that there is a way to use legal aid payments to control the outcome of criminal investigations.

The changes proposed completely change the role of defence solicitors. Currently there is an open market where the client can choose any lawyer they wish, the government then pay the bill. The new proposals turn the market on its head and make the government the customer, now the government will choose the solicitors to do the work and the client has no option but to select a government lawyer. Obliviously a client could pay to go with another criminal lawyer, but those lawyers are likely to be unfamiliar with the area of law and curiously most people accused of crimes are too poor to do this. This change provides the government with complete control of the justice system. government controlled police arrest and charge you, government lawyers prosecute you and government lawyers defend you. The government will suggest they will not be putting any pressure on lawyers in these cases, but that is impossible. Currently the reputation of a solicitor is vital in getting work, if you are known to be good, to get good results for your clients, you will have more clients and more business. Now the government will be able to do the exact opposite, only give contracts to those who don't get the best results for their clients, more guilty verdicts, more guilty pleas.

So these reforms not only offer the chance to save money, but they also allow the government to claim better results in fighting crime all without upsetting the voters. Voters think these reforms only affect criminals and lawyers, and nobody loves them. However when considering the effect of these reforms one should consider the recent changes in the criminal justice system and the restrictions on protest. It will now possible for a dictator to have complete control of the country, but of course that won't happen here.

Economic History

Some thoughts to counter the idea that the Conservative goverment of the eighties sorted out the economy.

The economy was ruined in the eighties, with the rape of resources through the privatisations. Also the economic theories of the Thatcher government, largely adopted by Blair, require low cost workers to keep wage demands low hence it's need to defeat the unions. Whilst Labour were attempting to bring the unions under control, causing the winter of discontent, Thatcher decided to use a more violent approach to secure a quicker result. Under the Thatcher government the low cost workers were provided by the mass unemployment they created, whereas the current government is willing to allow migrant workers to fill the gaps; something the Conservatives are philosophically opposed to. Further havoc was caused by the fact that inflation would always rocket under a Conservative government, and it is only the more modern controls introduced globally and here by Brown that has controlled it. Further destruction to the economy ensued as mass unemployment leads to higher welfare costs, either directly through benefits or indirectly through healthcare. The Conservatives also took the shortsighted route of imprisonment for as many criminals as possible rather than pursue more complex solutions, again adding to the cost, and again continued by Labour.

Dilbert: Worst Job Ever

Working with the Buddhist philosophy: “Why kill your enemy? They will die soon anyway.” I think that each side should just read through the obituaries and randomly claim responsibility for the death, especially as it seems that's what they do with explosions. If Israel prefers, rather than claim responsibility directly, it can put out a rumour that Mossad killed them. This way no one gets killed that wasn't dead already. If reading the obituaries and phoning news agencies doesn't make you look tough enough then isn't it better value to ask all sides to appear on a Japanese TV in one of their endurance shows, that would really prove who's tough. Hezzbollah vs Israel, Hamas and Syria can enter their own teams or share team members between themselves in a random way that only the US can claim to understand. If the US want to enter their own team as well as supply kit to the Israelis they could use Tony Blair as a mascot, he could run up and down the side line in an eagle suit shouting "Go George, Go Bush" or "You Ess Aay, You Ess Aay". I still think Bush would have gained more credibility by taking on Saddam Hussain in a WWF Smack Down.

Guardian: IE7 will come on auto-update

I forsee a problem, there are many sites that do not work with IE7 even some that work with Firefox/Safari, so when everyone gets IE7 automatically there will be confused users and sites losing customers. As a Windows/Firefox and Mac/Safari user I will be an amused bystander.

Guardian: Google offers live traffic maps for mobiles -- a killer app?

Most people don't have satnav and most people do have a mobile , with an increasing number able to access the web. So if you get caught in a jam, do you a) walk to the nearest shop by a sat nav and set it up in your car, or b) google it? As for safety, stupid people can't be stopped, but if you have a passenger, or you are at a standstill, you will be OK.

Guardian: Apple on the up - but iPod sales down

The biggest threat to a stand alone music player is from mobile phones and portable machines from Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox. If people are carrying one of these that plays enough music then they will not need to carry a separate music device. Following this I think the iPod market will be split in two, at the lower end people who want something smaller than a phone or gameboy will buy something like the shuffle, at the other end some people, and I probably include myself, will need something with more storage and will buy the appropriate size of iPod.

I doubt Apple will want to be absent from this middle tier, and it is easier to build a mobile from scratch than to enter the games market, unless the occasionally rumored link with Nintendo arises. So I expect Apple to create a mobile phone in the next 2-3 years. If in ten years every mobile phone has 1TB of storage then I suspect large stand alone devices will fade away, if these phones are the size of a shuffle or smaller then they too will disappear.

Record Companies

I recently bought a box set of John Coltrane material listed on Amazon as “The Complete Impulse Studio Recordings”, however it turned out that the correct title was “The Classic Quartet - The Complete Impulse Studio Recordings”. What this means is that the later Impulse recordings, which added Pharoah Sanders and Alice Coltrane, were not included and the later period was actually of most interest to me. I didn't mind, because I hadn't been short changed by this 8 cd set, and this is a great collection of albums. I thought I would just have to look out for the other box set covering the later years. As I have already bought a few Miles Davis sets I know that it is sensible to split these collections, and having looked a bit further there is probably another 5/6 cds worth of Coltrane material, great. Except there is no other box set, this set was released in 1998 and since then Impulse have just ignored the rest. Most of the albums are available, but some are only available on import or second hand. I also discovered that shortly after the original release of this box set Impulse found new material, but didn't add it to the set, but have released it on reissues of the original albums, so if I did want the extra material I would have to get a duplicate of the album I already have in the box set. Another disappointment for me was the partial albums included, Kulu Se Mama has the title track missing, because it was not recorded by the Classic Quartet. I already have this on vinyl, so do I buy it again on CD? “Live at Birdland” is a mixture of live and studio recordings, I now have the studio recordings so I thought I would pop on to iTunes to get the live tracks, except iTunes won't let you but these tracks separately, I have to purchase the whole album and therefore pay for duplicate tracks. Luckily “Impressions”, which is also a mixture of live and studio recordings, used live tracks from The Village Vanguard and Impulse have released the complete recordings from those nights.

I would also like to replace my collection of 1970s Temptations albums which were produced by Norman Whitfield. These are great albums and I miss them, I would be willing to repay something to get them. So I looked on Amazon, I looked on iTunes and I looked on the Motown website. I discovered that not all of these albums have been re-released on CD, but worse, some that were re-released have had the tracks edited. However what really irritates me is the 20 something greatest hits albums that have been released instead.

Last year I bought the Complete Stevie Wonder on iTunes, and this was a genuine complete set. So why do Motown not do this for their other artists? Why do Impulse release only one box set and not see it through. I have heard that Sony/Columbia are delaying the final Miles Davis box sets, all very odd. Surely there is some value in making available a product for me to buy, perhaps if record companies stopped worrying about illegal downloads and got on with there job then people wouldn't go to illegal download sites in the first place. I can understand that record companies will have a priority list, but surely that would include John Coltrane and wouldn't include hundreds of greatest hits collections.

Reading

In the middle of all these I forgot this:

Musical Holiday

The Orb have been busy:

Guardian: Adware scumbags rake in $2 billion a year

I have worked in a company where the marketing department were told directly by senior staff that these products should be avoided, but they went ahead anyway. Why? Because they are not judged by their pure view but by the returns for the company. Until companies take a broader view these things will continue. Even on a usability case The Guardian now uses adverts that are very annoying, why do you do it? Not for customer satisfaction, but for the money. Quite how advertising departments can prove a return on investment for such irritations is beyond me, but the point stands that companies are financially driven, even the Guardian.

Coltrane

I like box sets, I like John Coltrane; restoring a few I had on vinyl:



following all this!

Shopping Burst

Having got the wedding out the way I finally have a couple of farthings to rub together, as I haven't bought anything since November my Amazon basket was bulging so I emptied some items in to my post box.



I have also bought the eighth in the Miles Davis box sets.


And another book for my Jeanette Winterson Collection.

Our Wedding - A collection of memories

I have moved the information.

Guardian: Sympathy for the record industry

The primary objection to record companies is always going to be the unequal relationship between an unsigned artist and a major label. Record companies are very fond of charging all costs back to the artist, so that in the end artists may be in debt to the company, even though they had little or no control over the spending. It is particularly sad for young artists who may be naïve when confronted with popstar potential, so they probably don't realise that the when the company is paying for all the freebies and extras, it is actually the artist who ultimately foots the bill. The unequal relationship also enables the company to own the masters, preventing the artist from having future control over their own work. I think there is real potential for legislation to control the contracts, and increase the freedom of the artists. My final objection is to the way record companies increase their margins with each new format that comes along, hoping the changes will obscure the increases. Given current technology it would be possible to allow the buyer to allocate proportions of the profit to the various parties, so if you were liked a label and artist but not the store you could make allocate 60p to the label, 50p to the artist and 10p to the store.

Guardian: Sounds fishy to me

A balanced diet is always the answer but rarely applied, I don't have a balanced diet because I am a lazy vegetarian. I am not worried about exam results, but about my mental faculties in later life, so I take Omega 3,6,9 as a supplement. Obviously the supplement I take is a vegetarian alternative made from nuts and seeds, but I bet few imagine that fish does not have to be in the solution. It is actually disturbing for me to see what were once vegetarian products being tainted with added fish oils, when there is a vegetarian alternative. I think it is better to talk about Omega 3,6 or 9 rather than fish oil, as fish oil leads people to conclude that only fish oil will do, but also vegetarians beware of Omega 3,6 or 9 additives in food.

Money Talking

I haven't verified these figures quoted from the Guardian for a £7.99 album on iTunes:
"The government (of course) took its 17.5% in VAT off the top, leaving £6.59 net. Under a standard record contract, the split, according to Bacs, would go something like this: performer 48p, songwriter 53p, credit card company 59p and Apple 99p - while the record company trousers the remaining four quid. Even at the megastar rates enjoyed by Macca, Jagger and Jacko (22% of retail, no deductions), the performer gets maybe £1 more and the record company a quid less. Hey, do the maths."

Wired: Allofmp3 vs Allthebrits

Your are on dodgy ground if you think all Russians are crooks. Don't forget the BPI and RIAA have a vested interest. If they were sure of their ground it would be over by now, so let them sue and we will watch the outcome. As for me being a thief, all the tracks I have bought are to replace vinyl, and this way the artists may get something, which they don't if I record the vinyl at home. I am also happy to pay them for the service rather than go to a p2p site, which I know is totally illegal.

Guardian: Will Blu-ray be one last flop?

Both new disc types offer two things, HD movies and a SD TV series on a single disc. I don't expect mass take up of HD technology for some time in the UK, so this will be a US led revolution. Even in the US adoption of either format will be slow, and I guess for most people the first player they will have is a Playstation or XBox. I also expect in the next five years some low-cost stand-alone dual-format players will emerge, negating the whole debate. Going forward the market will be closer to the current games market with some films available in one format and some in both. I strongly suspect that both these formats will suffer the fate of the mini-dics, in that they will be beaten not by each other but by a change in consumer habits, with downloads taking over from conventional DVDs.

AllOfMP3 Update

AllOfMP3 have responded to criticism and said they do pay royalties to artists:

The US government officials and politicians have been demanding lately that the Russian authorities shut down allofmp3.com, alleging the site is pirate. Otherwise, they threaten Russia with sanctions, including blocking its entry to WTO.

In this regard we would like to make a statement:

1. The site AllOfMP3.com belongs to a Russian company and for 6 years it has operated within the country, in full compliance with all Russian laws. Throughout this period the various government offices have scrutinized site's legality and have not found any breach of the law. So far there has been no decision by any Russian court contesting the site's legality.

2. The Russian site AllOfMP3.com is not operating or advertising its business on the territory of other countries.

3. The site AllOfMP3.com does regularly transfer substantial amounts of royalties to the Russian organizations for collective management of rights such as ROMS and FAIR, which have granted the site licenses to legally deliver music through the Internet.

4. The site AllofMP3.com reserves the right to take all steps necessary to protect its business reputation. We call upon everyone to take a thorough and unbiased view of the site's legality.

5. On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006.

6. We believe in the long term and civilized business based on respecting the law, considering the customers' demands as well as the interests of both national and international rightholders.

The AllofMP3.com Administration
June 6, 2006 Moscow

Copyright and Fair Use

A recent email to the Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport:


In response to being called a criminal by the ifpi and hearing that the Commons Select committee has been told by the "generous" BPI that even though I am a criminal I will not be pursued. I thought I would pass my comments, which are more in line with the National Consumer Council.

Since I could afford to buy music I have shared it. My brother and I would rarely buy the same record, it made no sense. When we started to travel we made copies on to tape to take with us, when we left home and split our combined collections we ensured we had a copy on tape. Our friends would give us tapes and we would give them tapes, if we liked an artist we would go out and buy more of their work, but would be unlikely to replace the album on tape. At every stage of this process our music collections grew, at the rate that our collective income could manage. We never considered what we did illegal or immoral, and still don't. Now we are in the digital age copying is easier, click-drag you're done, but technology doesn't make me a criminal.
I have tried to transfer some of my vinyl to a digital format, I am told this is illegal. I will not buy a digital replacement, I would rather spend my money on a new CD or occasional iTunes download. I spotted the AllOfMP3 web site and thought this would be a cost efficient way of replacing my vinyl. From my perspective I want to give an artist the full dollars from a new purchase, but don't want to spend twice and in these circumstances AllOfMP3 let me give some money to artists, and get my digital music too. Sadly, I am being told that AllOfMP3 don't give any money to artists via their Russian artists organisation, but I am still happy to pay them to convert my vinyl.
One of the ironies of the digital download debate is that most of my vinyl is second hand, my money never really made it to the artists at all. Yet now the record companies expect me to pay more for a product I would find hard to sell on. One of the reasons I still buy CD's is to ensure I actually get a substantive product.

What I want is for the legislative bodies to get in line with public wishes. We all understand the need for artists and companies to make money, but we also have an understanding of fair use, and have a pretty good idea of where the moral boundaries fall. Once people feel they are entering a darker world, they start to lose their restraint and to this extent piracy will grow. Only when record companies recognise fair use will piracy recede, but record companies will only do this when forced by law to change. Our MP's must stand up for their constituents and defend the fair use of our purchases, stop conceding to the lobbyists and sort out the law.

Dilbert Blog: Relativity

In your bubble people are rational beings, in my bubble they are not. If you want to test your rationality study some pure mathematics, few people can follow it. If you want to really hurt someone who thinks they are rational get them to try and follow Einstein's theories.

Dilbert Blog: Pragmatic Party

Government by opinion polls, that's sort of what we have had in the UK for the last eight years. In truth the UK is governed by headlines, which is what usually determines the outcome of the polls. The government is left to decide how best to keep as many people happy as possible to gain election, which is just another opinion poll. The problem with this system of government can be summarised in the following poll questionnaire:
1 Would you like the government to give you $1billion Yes/No
2 Would you want the government to give everybody $1billion Yes/No

The polls would come in and you would either bankrupt the government or overrule the results of question one.

Your methodolgy is to be opinion poll orientated, but allow pragmatism. So you would ignore a poll like the one above on the grounds of pragmatism. This infers that polls are worthless, because you will do what you think is pragmatic, so rather than taking poll, we should first ask you what you think is pragmatic, then if you think it is pragmatic ask the public what they think. You will find yourself swamped with questions of pragmatism, and the public swamped with polls, which is not pragmatic so it is more pragmatic to devolve the decision making to a committee or “cabinet”as it is sometimes known, then they will need to have departments full of people assessing the pragmatism of the ideas. To offset the need for constant polls, the public would elect a representative to make decisions on their behalf, and they could sit together to discuss and debate ideas in the mature method you require. The openness you seek would be tempered by national security and practical issues such as cost. The rules could be outlined in a Freedom of Information act, so that we all know where we stand.

You end up where we are, even to the point where you claim to be acting for the good of the people and not for your own agenda. What you are missing is details of the way you intend to get ideas to people and of allowing stupid people or busy people or couldn't give a fig people to participate. So it appears that your fantasy will remain a fantasy, as mine and many others have done.

Guardian: Why Creationism is wrong

No scientist can refute the theory that god created the world 3 seconds ago, with all evidence to the contrary built in, as a test of faith. Why god would do this is bit beyond scientific reason, but is within the scope of religious philosophy. One could move the timescale a bit and say god created the universe about six billion years ago, complete with all the physical laws, but still we are left with “so what”. So really there is no debate, if you believe in a creator god then, you believe that god created stuff. If you don't then go didn't. The Creation/Evolution debate is the merging different spheres of knowledge, I know that some rugby players are religious but I don't think it works to have a priest offering tactics based on Ezekiel's raising of the dead. Equally many scientists are religious, but know where the limitation of each sphere lies.

The best explanation of our existence based on the current evidence is evolution, that may change, but for now like all scientific explanations it works. Why religion feels the need to undermine science, by trampling all over its ground, is because science is damaging religion. Science has been successful, very successful, at blowing away myths and misunderstanding. Science backs itself to be tested and adjusts when it is wrong; making it more right than it was before. So as science has become more prevalent many people have found it hard to hold on to their faith, and now religion is fighting back. Religion deliberately misunderstands science, as religion is trying to show that the theory of evolution is weak, and so may be wrong, but religion will fail in its argument because it can only provide the alternative theory of “ta-daa”. Where religion will find success, however, is undermining some people's faith in science. Many people have no understanding of scientific methods, and religion is working on the underlaying worry that scientists “don't know everything”; and they don't. So scientists are left floundering because they try to tackle the argument on their usual terms and religion doesn't care about the result of that argument. The way for science to argue would be to insist that they can teach scientific theory's in church time, perhaps every church sermon should begin with an explanation that most images of christ are incorrect, as the nails would be in the wrist not the hands, that he and his mother were probably darker in complexion. Show that the bible was not written in a weekend but was collected by real people in a politically motivated way. Science doesn't need to be afraid of religion offering a theory or two, nor should it be annoyed. Science just needs to do it's normal thing but pursue it into the religious sphere, but that would scare the scientists more that the religious.

Dlibert Blog: Could Science Eliminate Religion?

I am all in favour of education and an understanding of science. I want the world to know of the benefit of tolerance and compassion. However I am not sure you will achieve your goals with this method, here's a few reasons why I think you will fail.

You forgot to mention that the most dangerous religious people live in the USA and run it's government, which indicates to me you have not fully understood that which you wish to defeat . You assume that people just wander around picking up ideas and think about them, most people go with what they know or are told by authority figures. If someone does come across a new idea, it would require some evangelical work on you part to ensure the success of the book, as evangelicals of other faiths will spend a lot of time dismissing it. You also seem to assume that faith is always bad, if you examine history many good acts have been carried out by people carrying some faith or religion, so you need to be sure your method will not undermine the good as well as the bad. Many people choose their religion after careful thought and examination of all the evidence you intend to provide and s would not be swayed by your ideas. For some the religious way of life is simply preferable to the non-religious life.

Einstein had faith that there was a unified theory, many scientists still hold this faith, yet there is no unified theory. In fact there is some evidence that a desire to find a unified theory is simply a manifestation of human form, and is comparable to our desire for a god. To truly eliminate religion you would need to truly understand the human psyche, something science has not achieved yet. So until you have an answer to the problem of human misery, and can guarantee success, I don't think you will eliminate religion.

BBC Bashing

I don't personally listen to either BBC Radio One or Two, but I still dislike this stupid BBC bashing that keeps cropping up. There is a constant idea that a nationally owned company, being successful and making money for the entire nation is bad, and that privately owned companies are good.

The report says that the two radio stations should be sold off because they hamper the commercial sector. So how will having them in the commercial sector help? Only if they think being commercial will damage the service they currently offer to the listeners, leading to a decline in audience. In particular they will have to use adverts, which is one of the key reasons they are popular, I think this is what they mean by "level the competitive playing field".

What it will also do is prevent the BBC maximising any commercial funds it can raise on the back of the radio stations success, which the BBC could put in to reducing the licence fee.

Dilbert Blog:Those Crazy Terrorists

I posted similar comments to Scott some time ago.

What worries me most on these comments is the opinion that Arabs/Mulims are often considered sub-human maniacs, and that America and Europe could not possibly cause misery for millions of people.

We know Saddam was bad, but was the bombing of Baghdad good. Even if the ends are justified the means, the "Shock & Awe" bombing would be terrifying for those who live there. Even if the motives of Israel are pure, does it alleviate the suffering of so many Palestinians?

USA and Immigration

In a shock move George Bush has placed the army on the Mexican border, and not because he thinks it is Iran. Using his Native American name Talking Bull the President said, "When we migrated in to this country across the Bering Straits from China we let some people go further in to Mexico and we did not expect to see them again". Confusing him self he added "When we stole these territories from the Mexicans in the 19th century we never imagined they would still consider it home". The American people have put up with immigration for too long, despite being a second generation President myself I think we should stop it now.

BBC Attacked by Tories

The Conservative party has complained that the BBC is stifling small local companies like the Tory party. They barked "how are USA companies supposed to form a monopoly when the BBC is so popular throughout the world?". They ranted on , "If the BBC doesn't stop soon they will make so much money that they don't need the licence fee, then how will we control them?". As an example, the BBCs dominance is stopping small garage start ups from filming Eastenders for download over the internet. The Labour party also agree that the BBC is politically biased.

Dilbert Blog: Income Gap

Here in the UK most voters are in the middle, neither rich or poor. Due to their wild aspirations, they all think they will be rich tomorrow, and many believe they are rich today. So they are convinced they must be protected from the feckless poor, and given every opportunity to accumulate vasts sums of money.

For years pollsters couldn't understand why their polls weren't working, people said they wanted more spent on health and education yet kept voting for tax cuts. In they end the pollsters decided people must be lying to them! People publicly are altruistic but in the privacy of the ballot box ask for more money for themselves.

As for the US, I hear stories about intimidation of people engaged in voter registration drives and in recent elections preventing poorer districts form getting to the polling both.

If you really wanted to start a poor persons party, rob from the rich and and all that, how would you go about publicising your cause?

Was it just for oil?

A post on the Dilbert Blog tempted me to put my thoughts in order, just to be sure what I was thinking:

Was Iraq invaded just for oil? No is the simple answer, yes is the other simple answer. Iraq was invaded to maintain a secure Western military presence, or in a more generous phrasing, to maintain regional stability. Now the reason this region is important, above say the forgotten parts of Africa, is because of its economic power, which is derived from oil. The West did not invade Iraq to make sure we had lots of oil, it feared that it wold lose control of the middle eastern economy, which would seriously damage the US economy in particular.

A long time ago the West was happy with Saddam, sure he killed and tortured, but hey, he was our friend! We even sent Donald Rumsfeld over there to sell supplies to create WMD. Unfortunately, like so many ill judged affairs it went a little wrong, Saddam got a little ahead of himself and invaded Kuwait, thinking his friends in Washington would be OK with this. So to keep him in order the US parked their tanks on their other friends lawn, the Saudi's, and told Saddam to watch himself. Pretty quickly this became untenable, for a number of reasons. Saddam along with a few other oil producers were thinking of moving their oil trades out of Dollars and in to Euros, not good for the US. These oil producing countries were also considering brokering exclusive deals with China, in urgent need of energy, something the West did not want to lose control of. For the record, the US engineered clauses in the new Iraqi constitution which give it tight control over the future of Iraq, in particular ensuring that Iraqi assets (oil) must not be nationalised, and therefore can be controlled by US companies. Finally another small problem arose, radical Islam. There were many Muslims who were offended by the sight of US weaponary on the holy lands of Saudi Arabia, and they started kicking up a fuss. One such Muslim was call Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi who was also a former friend of the US, but that was then. These radical Muslims were attacking US targets and threatening to overthrow the Saudi princes, which if it succeeded could cause Saudi money to leave the US economy at a devastating rate.

For some time many in the US had publicly pondered how to solve these dilemmas, how could an overthrow of Saddam Hussain be orchestrated without raising too much objection, then...

Guardian: I do not reject the Geneva conventions

I am pleased that a member of the government has allowed comment to be passed on what they say, if they actually read the comments then better still. I think the government should find a way of doing this more often, open up it's own forums or blogs. In the past the media has provided a buffer between politicians and public opinion, now perhaps the buffer can be removed.

The key to international law is not change or adapt it, but to implement it. The US government has been accused of being criminal in many regards but it is criminal in its attempt to disrupt or avoid international legalities. There was no urgency to invade Iraq, and so we could have taken time to create an international response. You say regarding legal constraints, that we have “an enemy which adheres to none whatsoever, but is swift to insist that we do”, whereas I usually see the enemy talk about our hypocrisy, our claim to be moral or legal when our actions are immoral or illegal. We should always strive to take the moral high ground. We should implement the international criminal court, empower the UN, or do anything to end wild-west justice and, to extend the analogy, bring in “federal marshals”. We must find a way to force the US to comply with international laws. We must end the immoral arms trade that disfigures so much of the world. We must end the disruption of democracies and support of dictators. Once we have a coordinated international legal system with consensus on implementation, once we have ceased the arms trade that fuels so much conflict. Once all this is in place then we will be able to wisely update our international laws, not before.

Guardian: Marx's reserve army of labour is about to go global

It should be welcomed that in a global economy a better balance of wealth between nations will arise, although this may mean some loss of income for the richer nations as capital is transferred to the poorer nations. There is a possibility of sustainable incomes in the richer nations by allowing for global economic growth; always at the expense of diminishing natural resources. However, it should be understood that a key restraint on capitalist excess has been universal suffrage. To date, the citizens of western nations have demanded that capitalism is contained and is fairer to the mass of workers. The new threat from capitalism is twofold. Firstly, as noted in the article, the ability of China to supply cheap labour; amplified by the inability of the Chinese workers to apply the same democratic restraints on capital that we have. Secondly, old fashioned divide and rule is coming in to play. As the economy is globalised, democratic nations become less able to restrain capitalism on their own and find themselves competing against each other to accept work on the worst terms. It is no surprise that pro-capitalist politics tries to increase xenophobia, as this helps prevent international unification. I believe the only way to continue the control of capitalism is to follow a three point plan: first increase democracy in China, second allow workers to move as freely as goods and finally, develop more supra-national democracy.

Guardian: Forget the Blair-Brown battle. Labour now needs a mission, not a monarch

You are right in your assessment, but how would this discussion arise? There is no method or procedure to allow the public to enforce a debate. We must rely on the wishes of the leaders presented to us. So far it seems that radical overhaul is only promised when desperation for power creeps in, but fades once power seems absolute. For now Brown feels he can bide his time and power will come, but how can we trust this man when ideals are, as you say, "subordinated to his own career ambitions". Blair promised a lot, but to an extent allowed himself to be a blank canvas upon which we painted or hopes. Cameron is trying a similar tactic now, but it may be we are too aware of this tactic for it to succeed. Once in power the government, not just Blair and Brown, started to suffer from a delusion that is always prevalent in long runs of power, where there original desire to gain power to serve the people distorts to the point where they view the government as the people and so they must keep themselves in power "for the people".

I still think it likely that Brown will win the next election, but hopefully it will be close enough to send a shock to him, and a radical overhaul is promised by all sides, and the promise kept because due to a genuine fear of losing. Sadly I am in a pessimistic phase, and see no chance of the debate you call for arising, now or in even the next parliament.

New Outlet

I have a new outlet for my rants!

The Guardian has started allowing comments to some of its articles, as they have a wider circulation than my blog I am going to start writing there to feed my ego. As they don't have a way of easily finding my comments I will also post them here.

Jericho Prison

I am prompted to write this due to a massive failing in the British press. I have seen a number of reports of the Israeli attack on the prison but have found no attempt explain why Israel thought it could invade another country, or why it felt the need to put on trial people already convicted of the crime. It seems that the press just report the events and not the underlying reasons and assumptions. Why is there no condemnation forthcoming from the British government? I can fully accept withdrawal of British staff if they new they were about to be bombed by Israel but please don't blame the Palestinian Authority, and would Israel have attacked knowing the British were still inside? Whatever the failings of the Palestinian Authority we can not allow Israel to drive tanks where it likes. I can only imagine the dire consequences if Iran attacked an Iraqi jail or heaven forbid the Chinese attack an Indian jail. I wonder if there are any prisoners in the USA that Mexico would like to retry?

A far better summary was provided by Steve Bell at The Guardian:

Health Scare

Recent research has revealed that the majority of people die if they do not do enough living. Evidence shows that those who actively participate in life will reduce the likelihood of death to almost nil. Whilst some activities lead directly to death, and others increase the likelihood of death, health experts have concluded that living is the best way to prevent death.

Opponents of the research say it is deeply flawed as it is based on those that have already died, and so cannot be applied to those still living, they said that "we must continue to be cautious, as the time of death is uncertain. Any activity undertaken must be properly researched to understand it's relationship to death". Some groups go so far as to say that the only activity we should undertake is research in to the safety of our activities, presuming such research is safe. Some religious groups are calling for the government to act as they fear ongoing avoidance of death will prevent eternal bliss and so too much living should be condemned rather than encouraged. Bobby McFerrin was quoted as saying "Don't worry, be happy", the dead were not available for comment.