To make matters worse, my warnings that the virus software we're using is a load of cobblers has come back to haunt me. Not only is it allowing Sircam through unscathed, but the upgrade we're asking our field workers to run is also causing problems. Random crashes, refusals to run the upgrade, and general non-co-operation are the order of the day.

Discussing politics with Lixz:
I have grapefruit!
The world is a better place. The grapefruit has finally found someone who likes it, and can rest in peace.

However, it appears that is a less divisive option than establishing a whole department that covers the same ground. Economies of scale and all that.
I think this is why it hasn't happened yet despite, as you note, "100% student support" -- it's a lot of bother to make a whole new department.
Indeed. Unless there is a clear-cut academic reason, which there doesn't appear to be, it's in the uni's best economic interests to keep the studies in existing departments.

It's a lot less bother to employ affirmative action (ethnic but also intellectual, to get people who really know about, say, Caribbean languages in the linguistics department; I don't know if you really call that affirmative action, but whatever), which I think makes a lot more sense.
In my book, "affirmative action" carries baggage of being something imposed on the institution, something that wouldn't happen without the action. By that definition, this isn't affirmative action, it's done for sound academic reasons.

Why would cultural heritage be worth preserving? The best answer I can come up with is that it's an acknowledgment of relationships that matter to us (our families, the neighborhoods we grow up in, whatever). I think that should be secondary when it conflicts with the most important aspects of our relationship to everyone in the world, things like securing justice for everyone, if only as a matter of scale.
I can't disagree with this. There is a point on the continuum that reflects a fair balance between the two; finding it may be difficult, but convincing other people that it exists can sometimes seem harder.

Critical theories: They're a bit hard to define because, like all postmodern theories, they seem to mean different things to everyone, which is probably part of the point.
Apply Popper's razor. If a theory cannot be disproven, it cannot be proven, and is worthless.

That book is about how racial minorities internalize hate speech. Aside from a lack of empirical evidence to support empirical assertions, it has the general problem of making no sense.
So how does one go about disproving his theory? An exercise for the reader. (Read: Can't be bothered to do it myself.)

On the whole, does it make or cost your country money? It must be a frightfully expensive thing to have, but then, there's so much tourism associated with it that I'm not sure.
On the direct economics, it's probably a money-spinner. However, that doesn't include any calculation for the support the monarchy lends to the class structure, the huge democratic gap at the heart of the UK constitution, or other such intangiables. It can only be a gut feeling, but I do reckon we'd be better off without them.

In general I think the reasons to be economically left-wing have to do with caring about people and not wanting them left out in the cold (coupled with an understanding of what capitalism does to some people), which is also the basis of social left-wing-ness.
Again, a fair call, and nothing with which I can honestly disagree. The bottom line is social policies that require intervention also need funding. Whether it's most appropriate to co-ordinate that intervention on a national, regional, city, or neighbourhood level - and hence where the funding should be raised - is another discussion. For me, subsidiarity is the watchword. For the UK government, it's anathema.

For example, I can't support many gay organizations these days, because they're all going wild over laws which give additional jail time to crimes directed at gay people in particular.
At the risk of raking over old coals on the list, I cannot support such proposals. A crime is a crime. Murder is murder. A stabbing is a stabbing. To change sentence based on an assumption of motive (and that's all it can be, an assumption) seems to strike at the heart of justice for all. Also seems to violate the equal protection notion at the heart of democracy, and enshrined in the US constitution.

Gay political leaders should understand that for a political minority such as themselves, someone who will really fight for civil liberties as his top priority is the best thing they could ask for. This really irks me.
Thankfully, hate crime legislation is off the radar in the UK, for all groups. Gays are concentrating on partnership rights, and trying to exploit the recent human rights legislation to gain concessions from the government.

As a sidebar, a rep for Amnesty International reckons that human rights laws are a bad thing. They set limits on the freedom a state should give, rather than enforce minimal curtailments of total freedom.

---

As always, Paulo had something useful to add
since in the U.S. it's impossible to even propose an economic left-wing alternative,
Look at how successful Ralph Nader was last year, and he was wimpishly right wing.

Nowadays, it seems that being "progressive" in the U.S. means to care about issues related to race, gender, sexual orientation... that is, anything except economy.
What is sauce for the US becomes the main course in the UK twenty years later. Here, the main political parties tried to outdo each other in tax cuts.

From what I've seen around, though, it seems like the prevalent view in most western countries is starting to be "socially liberal, economically conservative". In other words: "let people fuck whoever they want (and let *me* fuck whoever I want too), but DON'T TOUCH MY MONEY!!!! NO MORE TAXES!!!"
You *are* Tony Blair, and I urge you to reconsider. Labour was, of course, the party that promised not to raise taxes, not to borrow money, and to increase spending faster than growth in the economy. I understand that they will be holding the next party conference at Milliways.

Nevermind the fact that public services cannot live of thin air, of course (the usual rationalization seems to be "if they were only more efficient!! Let's privatize them so that they have to compete in the real world").
If you want greater efficiency, try removing some of the central control and allow it to peculate down to the people you're actually serving.

And back to Lixz
People look at how much they spend on taxes and get upset; it doesn't seem to occur to them that (if they're poor or lower-middle class or even middle middle class) if they had things like health insurance taken care of, if they didn't have to worry about their kids' college education, if rent were much cheaper, etc etc, they could pay more taxes and it wouldn't be a financial problem at all.
OK, so what about inequitable taxes. I pay a hefty chunk of tax to the city. This covers education (which I don't use); road maintainance and improvements (which I don't use); public transport (which I do use, but not that much); garbage collection (which I do use); and other services.

I don't mind paying for most of the services I don't use; education fits the economic definition of a Public Good, one that the market does not adequately provide. Ditto public transport, and garbage collection. Road maintainance I do object to funding, it offends against my environmental principles.

What I *do* object to is that the services are of a really low quality. The garbage collectors miss my house one week in six, public transport is spotty, the education service doesn't educate and isn't a service. I can say this because in my parents' area, and where I lived a couple of years ago, the services were far better.

everyone gets behind a call for lower taxes, seemingly without recognition that this always means fewer and less good social programs as well.
This is my take on economics, now that Lixz is away for a while (: Fund worthwhile social programmes, do so in a way that really gets the job done, and do *that* at a minimal cost.

a lot of waste in US government (including nearly all "defense" spending), but does anyone honestly think that's where they cut funding from when money runs short?
Guffaw. We're still waiting for the "peace dividend," promised in 1990 after the cold war came to an end.

Over the years, my views on marriage haven't changed much. It's a ceremony to acknowledge a couple's commitment to society at large. I cannot see any economic or moral justification for the perks awarded by the government to such committed couples, especially as it only grants those perks when it's in the government's favour. For instance, there's a tax allowance for married couples, but unmarried couples are treated as married when claiming benefits. Smacks of hypocricy.

How do they quantify the gains in efficiency from motivation compared to the vast amounts of money spent by capitalist systems on advertising?
Good question. We'll have to think about this one.

Deathly quiet down the store tonight - I'm out and back within half an hour, when usually I'm queueing for almost that long. (Well, it sure feels like it.)

...and talking with Lixz about "The Substitute"
I also think that what Angela does is remarkably similar to what Graham thinks is right. Since she's not always doing what he *tells* her to, but they still seem to have the same reactions or very similar ones, perhaps this is indicating that despite Father Figures, Graham is still a big influence in Angela's life, even if not directly.
Perhaps Angela is reaching the same conclusions as Graham, possibly through the same thought processes, possibly through different ones.

The adults on this show are written so damn well. I know everyone (well, many people do) talks about it as a show about teens, but damn, can I believe in Patty and Graham's relationship.
Oh, absolutely. I can't help thinking that this is something that is confirming how close P&G are.

I wonder if even at that point Rayanne saw some potential for friendship between Sharon and herself far down in the future?
I'm gonna have to watch that scene again. I kinda think Rayanne had a distinct note in her voice.

she might have gathered that the two of them would eventually reconcile, and figured that she'd be better off on friendly terms with Sharon when the time comes? Is this plausible, and if so, how conscious of it is Rayanne herself?
Possible, distinctly possible.

There may be many reasons that what Foster does is wrong, but this still makes no sense to me. If it's unacceptable, that's *why* no one's allowed to see it. The unacceptability would be not from the thing existing in the first place but from "children" being allowed to see it -- I think Angela's question is totally illogical.
I think Angela's subtext is that she reckons the audience is mature enough to judge for itself whether it's acceptable to see this publication. Given that it was written by the audience, she has to have a fair point.

Jordan calls him Mister while Foster is in the room.
So you think it's Jordan adjusting to the presence of an authority?
Absolutely. Foster has been the butt of quite some student unrest already in that scene; Jordan may detect Foster is about to blow, and avoids doing something that antagonises him further.

I kinda like my idea that it was symbolic of what Vic meant to each Angela and Jordan. To Jordan, he is meaningful because he is acting like a teacher should; he is the first one to actually pay attention to Jordan's illiteracy.
OTOH, this is a very attractive call.

Is this related to your theorizing that Brian knows he's above the school because he's headed for bigger and better things? Is this a positive thing (because it keeps him above caring about some things, like it makes it easier for him to stand up to Foster) or a negative thing (because it's condescending)?
Brian knows he's above the school, and he's recently proven that he's the moral superior of Foster. It's going to make it a lot easier for him to stop caring about the minutiae of the school rules. He doesn't fear Foster. This can be positive or negative.

Emily says he's doing it for the wrong reasons: because it's Angela. Here's my take. Emily may be right, that Angela is the impetus for Brian's offering. (Having won in his earlier bout with Foster, in G&G, probably helps as well.) But I still don't think he would do it if he doesn't think it was the right thing to do.
Maybe it's a combination; Brian knows it's the right thing to do, he has the courage to resist Foster, and it'll impress Angela. Result!

With Lixz in Mongolia, one can rely on Cory for anything

Of *course* there are times when I want to kill Jordan. And Brian. And Angela. And Raynie. And Pattie. and Graham. And Sharon. And times I want to hold them, and lots of times I've stood up, in my living room, and applauded them. Just like people I love in real life. that's the *whole point* of this show.
Exactly. For instance, FREAKS & GEEKS slipped onto E4's schedules Monday. While the attention to detail makes it realistic (though not too realistic to be, say, painful,) the show feels like a one-trick pony. Character is torn between traditional role and new, "cool," friends. Without the humour of MSCL.

Can someone tell me, without giving spoilers, whether it's worth watching, or if I can return to the Crystal Maze. Ta.

I think there's a bit of good in the worst of us and a bit of bad in the best of us, and if we are indeed holding MSCL up to RLR, I believe taht about the characters as well.
Indeed. Even someone supremely talented in real life has their weaknesses. Even someone apparently pointless has their strong suits.

I think I would like Angela more if she grew up and decided to be with someone who not only had a good heart but was also ready to give her more of what she wanted and/or needed.
This is not Brian as we know him. This may be Brian in a few years.
This is not Jordan as we know him. This may be Jordan in a few years.

I would break up with a girl if she wasn't ready to have sex and wasn't going to be in the near future. . .especially if I was starting to have feelings for her. Actually, I probably would have thought a few times about getting involved to begin with.
So, it wouldn't wholly be about sex, or the lack thereof. There would be other issues.

I'm at a place where sex is a natural expression of my feelings at a certain point in a relationship.
Indeed. Hell, *whoever* gets to hear that expression is going to be a lucky, lucky lady indeed.

Anyway, I certainly can't say having that as a huge problem in the relationship makes Jordan a bad person. It *does* become a huge problem.
He can't help it, he was born with it.

Oh, different problem.

Including some telly. European League Draw(Eurosport) like watching paint dry. In slow motion... Grunge Top 5(M2) Ah, the memories. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alison Chains, Dinosaur Jr, Nirvana. And not the obvious choices, either.

I suggested Andrea do something in her job...
>Hang in there. You could be the anti-corporate corporate rebel...
There you go!! How do you suggest I go about doing that?
Bearing in mind you don't want to go round losing your job, you could suggest that you push business to small, local firms, rather than International Mega Corp. Or push for extra recycling facilities. Make do and repair what you have rather than always buying new. And always stall just a little when asked to do something you know is bad.

The mist and humidity that we've had for the past few days goes, but only to be replaced by more serious sun.

Picking up the earlier discussion with Paulo
>Look at how successful Ralph Nader was last year, and he was wimpishly right wing.
Actually, from what I read of him, it sounds as if he would have fitted into a moderate centre-left niche if he had been in Spain, while in the U.S. he was the most leftist of the major candidates (does the Communist Party of the U.S. even exists anymore, BTW?)
ISTR they were on *that* Palm Beach ballet paper. But I could well be wrong. In the UK, I *think* he'd fit somewhere around the Liberal Democrats, who have moved from the centre to the left in the past 20 years without changing the thrust behind their policies.

policies that could be considered before right-wing are now in the centre-left, while clear cut leftist policies (nationalizing industries, etc.) aren't even considered now.
Except when the private attempt has so clearly failed; bringing Railtrack back under state control was part of the LD's manifesto in June. That's the company that owns the track that trains run on, but doesn't run any trains itself. It vies with Microsoft as the worst monopoly in the Western world; Railtrack does have the marginal moral excuse that it would not exist had the EU not decreed separation between train runners and track owners.

>You *are* Tony Blair, and I urge you to reconsider.
Well, he did sweep the elections, didn't he?
No, he was soundly beaten by the None Of The Above Party (incorporating Apathy Disorganised.) Blah got 41% of 63% of the population. NOAP got 100% of 15% (drop in vote since 1992) plus 50% of 22%. The others really couldn't be bothered.

Obviously people liked what he had to offer...
Nope. They disliked the other main party more, and the LDs are still about ten years away from being a serious contender.

It seems as if all around the western world, people want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to have sexual and social freedoms brought by the left, while at the same time getting the freedom of MAKING MONEY FAST!!! of the right. Postmodern times, indeed.
There's nothing wrong with this, per se, so long as it's done with appropriate care for *everyone*. That duty of care has been lacking for the past twenty-odd years.

Leaving people in dead-end jobs, ones that don't stretch them, is a waste of talent. Failing to provide social advancement to the deserving is a waste of talent. Tying up scarce resources in wasteful paper-pushing projects rather than doing something useful is a scandal.

(Reading the above makes me sound a lot like John Major. That's scary.)

A trip into town is called for, as my shaver has decided that it is going to break. One quick replacement later, a brief look round the usual haunts. The decent bookstore is selling This Sceptred Isle 55BC - 1901(Christopher Lee, Penguin, 1999) at 30% off. This is the book of the award-winning radio show, narrating the history of Britain. There's a companion volume covering 1901-1999. Also get Bilton(Andrew Martin, Faber & Faber, 1998) from the 99p pile.

Record store yields quite a pile. The single of Help I'm A Fish!(Little Trees, 2001) comes highly recommended. They're also selling old stock at deep discount. Welcome To Wherever You Are(INXS, 1992) contains two of the greatest tracks of all time, no question. Everything You Want(Vertical Horizon, 2000) has the US #1 single, and two other massive hits that never were. The May Street Project(Shea Seger, 2000) is also highly recommended, somewhere between pop and singer-songwriter territory. Mad Season(Matchbox 20, 2000) is one I forgot to pick up in the US, and goes well with Yourself Or... And Everyday(Dave Matthews Band, 2001) is taking an on-release discount, which I can perfectly live with.

A few weeks ago, chelle challenged to hold a conversation entirely in lyrics.
i'm back online so PLEASE send me email, as i'm wallowing in loneliness by day.
i've got no secret purpose
i don't seem obvious, do i?
Help! I'm a fish!

And, heck, she was one of the few r&b singers I could stand. This, alone, is a reason to lament.

BIRMINGHAM went down as the first losers of the Paxman era, going down to Aberdeen in the 95 opener . They did come back as a high-scoring loser, ousting Lampeter in the second round and tying New Ox ford in the quarters, only to lose the tie-break. Success since has been elusive, losing heavily to Selwyn Cambridge in the 96 first round, and being slaughtered by Durham last year.
Full disclosure: Birmingham is my own college.

This is the first appearance by CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD since the revival.

"Do you know nothing?" asks Paxo after neither team recognised which superhero shouted "Shazam." [1] CCO, who thinks Jane Austen was living in 1897, clearly doesn't. Birmingham, with two PhD student s and two engineers, clearly doesn't, as they trail 65-(-5) shortly after the first pictures. Birmingham stages a mini revival shortly after, but it's Christ Church all the way, and I'm mentally tuning out by the half. A lot of questions about New York this week, for some reason. And a lot about sport, all answered by CCO captain Ben Fasham.

There's no change later in the show. CCO wins, 235-100. Notable is Liam Herringshaw, the only Birmingham player to answer three starters, but the team goes 0/9 on his bonuses. Birmingham now has the rather unfortunate statistic of one win from six appearances.

[1] Captain Marvel.

(THE) WEAKEST LINK

With the first shows in the new series airing this week, it feels appropriate to review how far this show has come in its first year. I'm looking only at the original, 9-person, Daytime Weakest Link .

First thing to note is that the game is a lot more free-flowing. The early episodes had a staccato quality, grinding slowly through the quizzing and steaming ahead during the voting and ritual abuse. The absurd ritual of having contestants step up to the centre podium went very quickly, thank goodness, and with cosmetic changes and Anne Robinson's increased confidence, the game began to move more steadily.

Anne has grown in her role. She still isn't as clearly intellectual as Jeremy Paxman, say - this week, there was a discussion of Pavlov's experiments on conditioned reflex. I get the feeling that Paxman would have had a knowledge of this experiment, and discussed it with the contestants. Robinson didn't, and I felt it was from a lack of knowledge.

But what our host lacks in book learning, she makes up in ritualised abuse of the contestants. "Which village is missing its idiot?" "Who is cooking on very low gas?" "Who has totally outstayed their welcome?" "Who doesn't write any new lines for me?" have all become minor catchphrases. Well, apart from the last one. Add to that the instantly recognisable sting, and the catchphrase that turned into a cliche within three months, and there are plenty of known quantities in the show.

If there's a criticism that can still be made, it's that Anne still seems to stall too much. There are clear pauses between a contestant giving an answer and the host confirming it, and signs that she's mocking the contes tants by saying something like "No, Claire, it's beans" rather than "No, beans." For an untimed game, such as Millionaire, this is fine; for a timed game, it's patently unfair.

The 9-strong daily show is played without an audience. Some of Anne's quips seem to be lost without some people tittering in the background, but the game as a whole is stronger for the cloistered atmosphere. British contestants are still far less likely to answer Anne back than their American counterparts, but how much of that is national character?

Lest we forget, it took COUNTDOWN some years to become a fixture of Channel 4's schedule, and only now are major changes to the show afoot. TWL already seems a permanent fixture on the afternoon sch edules, and I can see it running as long as Anne's schedule and the popularity will allow.

Newly released documents reveal the extent of US government knowledge at the time of the 1994 Rwanda slaughter. Several senior officials were aware of its genocidal dimensions, even as they sought ways to avoid getting involved. Prudence Bushnell, then an official at the Foreign Department, latterly survivor of the Kenya embassy bombing, now ambassador to Guatemala, warned foreign secretary Warren Christopher of imminent widespread violence. She urged a Rwandan military officer to end the killings. One document includes an unidentified official's clarion call: "Be careful, Legal at State was worried about this yesterday. A genocide finding could commit USG to actually 'do something.'"

Sinéad O'Connor and her new man, Nick Sommerlad, confuse everyone by not marrying in a "secret ceremony" some weeks ago, they merely claim to have done. The marriage announcement was a hoax to throw the press off the scent of their actual wedding, set for this weekend. Nobody in Ireland really gives a monkey's about her, but the fact that she got Nick, himself a respected journalist, to spread false information to other journalists has not gone down well.

China admits she has an AIDS problem. The government estimates 600,000 HIV cases at the end of 2000, but UN estimates almost double this figure, which projects to about 13 times as many cases in 2010 as China expects. China has spent only a fraction of the money spent on HIV education by Thailand. When one Chinese doctor won a prestigious international public health prize for her AIDS education efforts, she was prevented by local officials from travelling to Washington to accept it.

Suddenly, the Tory leadership battle sparks into life. Or undeath, we're not quite sure which. It turns out that one of IDS' local organisers is the father of the leader of the racist British National Party. He's dropped from the IDS campaign, but under the federal structure the Tories adopt, he can only be thrown out by the local association. To defuse the looming bad press, IDS must make it clear that normal people do not join political parties. Only extremists and enthusiasts do, and these people sometimes turn out to hold unpleasant views.
There are racists in the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. Some members of the SNP actively dislike the English; some Plaid Cymru members want non_Welsh speakers to leave the principality. Plenty of Green party members believe individual liberty is not consistent with environmental good practice. Intolerance is not a Conservative preserve.
A whiff of intolerance is beginning to hang over IDS' campaign. However unfair this is, that stench will grow more pungent unless he takes action to dispel it. Over the next few weeks more racists may come forward; some may say they support IDS. None are likely to endorse Nobby.

A Libyan man cleared of carrying out the Lockerbie bombing calls for his co-accused, jailed for the atrocity, to be freed. Speaking publicly for the first time in an interview with the Scotsman, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah said he was "totally convinced" of the innocence of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was jailed for life in January. Fhimah's comments were published as Megrahi was granted leave to appeal against his conviction for murder.

The United Nations stages a conference against racism in Durban (itself the home of a number of - er - interesting racial experiments) this week. Two draft proposals have come through our inbox.

One is a proposal for governments to create standing national consultation bodies to monitor, mediate and prepare codes of conduct for the press. The other calls for an "international code of ethics for communications media" to combat "unlawful dissemination of information that is racist, discriminatory, xenophobic or relating to intolerance."

From past experience, such bodies and codes would either be toothless (witness the singularly useless television and radio regulators in the UK) or broaden their remit to start regulating other subjects. What's more unsettling is that the UN would task its own human rights commission to write the code, expanding its own remit by a vast amount.

In any case, the categories of information that would be addressed by this code are subject to differing interpretations between cultures and countries. This code would to be used to repress forms of expression that are legitimate elsewhere. It would be used as a cloak for censorious governments - Zimbabwe, for instance - to hide behind.

The drafts seem to assume that racial and ethnic tension and hate can be wished away by banning its expression. But it's not the media's role to fight racism or anything else. The role of the press is to describe and inform. If media outlets want to work against racial and ethnic hatred, that must be their free choice. Now, this is a choice that quality media have historically made, and to great effect. If it were a legal requirement, such statements would turn into official propaganda, and wouldn't have anything of the bite. Would Amnesty International, started by an article in the Observer, have caught the imagination under such a climate?

The draft "urges states to make punishable by law ... incitement to racial hatred" and "calls upon all states to criminalize dissemination through the Internet of racist messages." It "requests states to take necessary measures to denounce, actively discourage and prohibit the transmission of racist and xenophobic messages through all communications media, including new communications technologies such as the Internet"

Now square this against the UN's own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 states, "Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The racism conference will be in Durban, South Africa, from Aug 31 to Sept 7.

This Week's Top 5: US Albums
1 Now 7
2 Songs In A Minor: Alicia Keys
3 Celebrity: N'Sync
4 Eternal: The Isley Brothers
5 8701: Usher