The Queen is dead, long live the King

Benazir Bhutto, the opposition leader in Pakistan, has been assasinated. She was shot thrice before a suicide bomber detonated himself.

Pakistan was due to have elections in 2 weeks. The ruling party has  mentioned that these may now be postponed.

Her 19-year-old son had been appointed her successor.

He is currently studying abroad, and intends to continue studying abroad, despite his new position.

In his absence, his father (Benazir Bhutto’s ex-husband) will rule the party.

Nice to see a party so desperate for victory appointing someone on their ability, rather than, say, their lifelong experience of being related to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who each and every chair has been related to.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but it’s very hard not to be. Perhaps I could get over the fact that the Bhutto dynasty has complete control over the chair of the PPP, but the fact that their new co-chairman is 19, living abroad, and cannot fluently speak the national language is quite a hurdle, I must admit. The PPP need to win elections. Will this man/boy help them achive these aims? Pakistan, a nuclear power no less, really deserves better.

Hmm… Just trying to think of another nuclear power who’s leader is related to another ex-president. I can’t remember it at the moment, but I’m sure that guys doing well.
Just look at it this way. Who would you rather have had as your leader, Tony Blair… or Mark Thatcher?
An extreme example maybe, but sooner or later you will get a Kim Jong-il throwing a spanner in the workings.

Short post, I know, but I’m leaving early tomorrow to visit my uncle who has stomach cancer.

South American Socialists

The People of Venezuela Give Demagogue Hugo Chavez Crippling Defeat!

Or so we’re told.

President Chavez has had a move to abolish the limits on the number of terms a president can sit rejected by his own people, 51%-49%. Much of the press in this country (Britain, where I live), as well as in America, has labeled this a ’significant defeat’ and that the ‘Venezuelan people have spoken out against oppression/for democracy’ or words to that effect.

The first problem I had with these was that, while the defeat itself may have been significant, the margin really wasn’t. People have been playing up how much this means, but really, 51%-49%? It’s about as narrow as narrow margins get. It’s really nothing to Chavez, if he dresses up another, similar referendum, and uses nice words, there is nothing to say that at least the 2%, if not more, that he needs may join his side. It is by no means a significant margin.

The second is that I don’t belive that abolishing the term limits is against democracy. Quite the opposite in fact. I think that term limits are in themselves against the principles of democracy. Democracy is all about the people’s choice. If the people want to vote for a popular president who has been well liked throughout the many years of his stewardship, why stop them? ‘Democracy’ means that they should be able to if they want to. If the people want to vote for a power-crazed Demagogue who will abolish parliment, send off all the minorities they don’t like to concentration camps and declare war on every other nation on the continent, then stopping them would be undemocratic. Regarless of anything else, a democracy means that the elected government is the people’s choice. It is against the principles of democracy to stop the people voting for who they want, regardless of how insane the people they want to vote for are. Countries such as America, who have imposed a 2 term limit, or Germany, who have outlawed the Nazi party, have attempted to make the Democratic system more workable by changing some aspects of it. Now, I’m not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but it isn’t necessarily democratic either. America could be percived to be undemocratic itself, as in the event of a president’s death or resignation, his vice-president takes over the remainder of his term, and the nation has an unelected head of state, as opposed to countries such as France, who must must elect a new president.

Which brings me onto my final point. France is a nation who, like many other democracies, have no term limit. Funnily enough, noone’s complaining about those guys.

Series Review: The IT Crowd Version 2.0

So, apparently I’ve decided to start reviewing various TV shows that I’ve seen in the past few months.

I’m going to start with The IT Crowd’s second series. For those not in the know, it is a comedy that focuses on 2 IT tech support, for want of a better word, nerds, and a woman with little knowledge of what this thing they call ‘technology’ is. And yet it is still amusing. This is probably down to the fact that it comes from the same guys who did Father Ted. And so onto the review itself;

It could have been so much more. I’m not saying it’s bad, as the season’s start was what testified this. The first half of the season was brilliant, and probably some of the funniest things to have been on our screens at the time. However, after that it went, to quote the ex-boss Denholm (RIP), “Aaaaaall the way to the bottom.” The second season didn’t go out with a bang, more a damp squelch. I was actually quite dissapointed, that the show went from the hilarity of the first episode to the quite frankly, well, just poor last episode. I couldn’t help but think that they were running out of ideas, which isn’t really that good considering that it focused on a new character. My friend said that the only reason that I found the first few episodes funny was, and I quote, as they “Got out of that goddamn basement.” I appreciate that the novelty of being in a cramped, dirty, bottom-of-the-pile underroom gets old after a while, but this simple wasn’t it. I mean, they left the basement in all of the episodes, to go to a play, a funeral, a cannible’s house (also Roy and Douglas’ houses), a dinner party, a television studio, and Douglas’ office. The problem wasn’t the setting, it could be funny if all the action just took place in some sort of white room, it was the quality of material which let it down by the end. As I said before, I think that they were running out of ideas, simply as there was such a difference in the quality of material between the start and end of the season, I think they used it all up there and then, and were rather stuck when they discovered they still had half a season to write. Onto the episodes themselves;

As this is a British style show, with 6 episodes a season, I will rate each episode and make a couple of comments on it. Don’t expect this when I come to review an American season (only 24 episodes!)

Episode 1: ☆☆☆☆
Our heroes go on a work outing! How hilarious! Well… actually… it was. They went out to see the aptly-named gay play, ‘Gay!’, and Roy pretends to be disabled. It’s a rather cliched concept (the outing that is), but this was definatly an original twist to said cliched concept.

Episode 2:☆☆☆☆
Denholm dies. WHAT. This episode made me incredibly angry, as, although Denholm died, I was unable to feel sad or ‘write to my MP’ as it was so damn funny (more so than any TV episode dealing with someone’s death has any right to be).Douglas is introduced, who, although very funny in his own right, can’t really compare to Denholm. Very good, but Denholm’s death prevented me from adding a fifth star

Episode 3: ☆☆☆☆☆
Moss tries internet dating and winds up with a cannible. Roy tries watching a DVD but everyone keeps spoiling the ending. Jen has a fag in a Kafka novel. Like the previous 2 episodes, these are all funnier than they have any right to be, and due to the 3 subplots, I think it is the funniest in the season, and also the series. Deserves 5 stars.

Episode 4: ☆☆☆
Our heroes go to a dinner party! How hilarious! Well… not as much as the first few episodes. It’s a bit of a cliche, but is lacking the dressing that the first 2 episodes used to spice up their cliches of work outings (play and funeral). Still a decent episode, but doesn’t measure up to the strong start the season made. Richmond became a (temporary) main character in this episode, and as much as I like the character, it doesn’t work. I much prefer his walk on cameos (which were done to perfection in the 2nd episode).

Episode 5: ☆☆☆
Not as good as the 4 before it. Still not bad, but… Well, in it’s defense, it still had it’s moments (Moss accidentally joining a live televised disscussion of the war in Iraq springs to mind), but it was by far the worst episode of the season. At least I thought so, untill;

Episode 6: ☆☆
Oh dear. What can I say? Very poor episode, maybe the worst of the entire series (although I may be wrong, as I haven’t seen the first season for a while, but nothing springs to mind). There was so much more that could have been made of this episode, especially with Moss and Roy alone in the basement (also Douglas!), but ultimatly…

All in all, not a bad season. It did trail off a bit towards the end, and the less said about the actual season final the better, but this is more than compensated by the strong start. Perhaps the last few episodes weren’t really that bad, and I’m just comparing them to the incredibly good first episodes. Well, whether the writers have run out of ideas or not, there will be a third season, and I can only hope it’s more consistant than this one (well, consistantly good). Thats actually not true, as I also hope for some Chris Morris. But that may be in vain. Oh well, at least his final episode was a good one.

Next time I will be reviewing some other show. I’ve not decided what yet. It probably won’t be something really bad to rip the piss out of as I probably won’t have stayed to see the whole season.

Hmm

I appear to have made either sports related posts, posts to youtube videos or no posts at all recently. I’ll fix this and bring actual content back to this blog as soon as I think of something. I could write about the many problems with my new computer, but who wants to read that? (not an invitation to email me/comment asking for this to happen.)

Britain’s Sporting Year: 2007

In short: We lost!

In long: We lost! In pretty much every discipline of every sport. No British team will compete in next year’s Euro 2008 Finals (although 3 of them must be pretty used to it, it is a relativly new experience for England and has caused a mass exodus from supporting the national team), and as for cricket, well, I would say something about it but I haven’t really been following it. Ricky Hatton lost, apparently this is bad news, but I have no idea, as I don’t follow boxing either.

It’s not all bad though. Despite press critisism, there have been some ups. Although they didn’t win the thing, who thought given England’s form they would be in the Rugby World Cup final? Really, we were never going to beat SA, but we beat the Aussies! Doesn’t that count for anything? Also- Lewis Hamilton. So what if he didn’t win the F1 championship in his first season? Who has? He seems to be one of the most exciting talents that has come into the sport since… Well, a while. No one has managed what he has in a rookie season (even giving the off the track politics), and yet, as he didn’t win the thing, they’re on his back! Why? Isn’t that enough for you? That he is not only British but also quite good? Just because 2nd isn’t best, it doesn’t mean he’s a loser, fair play to him for even competing in one of the highest levels of motor racing. There are other British drivers in F1 at the moment, worse drivers than Lewis, who never get any recognition for that precise reason. Good on him!

Also, I have to mention this, but 2007 is the year that Tim Henman retired. So what if he never won Wimbledon, he was a good tennis player who did won tournaments. Just not ones in England. Is Wimbledon the only one that matters? Well, it appears so.

I disagree with the argument that “We shoulden’t play up these losers (usually Henman) as it sets a bad example to our children. We want them to WIN!” Well yes, but this isn’t solving anything. If anything, these comments will put people off becoming sport stars. Becasuse there can only ever be one no. 1. And if that person isn’t you, no matter how good you are, this is what people will say of you.

I find it rather depressing.

Eels

How British Officers SHOULD Behave in the Event of Capture

Britain: We’re Not Going to Switzerland or Austria

Unless you’re Lewis Hamilton.

 Yes, no teams from Britain have made it to Euro 2008. This is certinly suprising for England, but also for Scotland, who seemed set to qualify for a major tournament for the first time in 10 years, despite their impossible group. McClaren has thusly, and rightfully, been fired for gross incompetance, and McLeish has resigned to take over at Birmingham City. Well done, Lawrie McSanchez (yes, I should support Sanchez as Fulham manager, but really, he could have done so much more. As indeed could McLeish).

Who will take over the reigns? Who knows. By reading any paper or website you’ll pick up mounds of useful nuggets that are impossible, implausible, or contridictory to whatever was published yesterday (Monday – ‘O’Neill: I won’t be England manager’, Tuesday – ‘O’Neill: Can he be tempted?’). Basically Mourinhio is first, followed by Coppela (yes, I do realise I should look up how to spell these names before starting), or O’Neill, depending on which paper you read, then comes the flock, including, for some reason, Alan Sherer, who has had no managerial experiance.

And Harry Redknapp, Portsmouth manager, has been arrested in connection to corruption. This means he won’t become the next England manager, so some good has come of it at least.