Lions and Floods

I left the wife asleep in bed this morning. There appears to be a flu epidemic and she has been struck down. I cleverly left a note saying goodbye next to her cell phone on the pillow so that I could wake her with a call around 10. In retrospect, the idea would have been even cleverer had I checked that the phone was switched on, but it turned out OK because she called me.

Andy has commented that he is hoping for a biblical flood to wipe out the faithful. In my experience these things only seem to encourage them Andy. We used to throw them to the lions and they're still moaning about it now. It was good to see however that Abby very nearly agreed with me about something when she said that Christians are protesting in the wrong areas.

My father sent me an interesting e-mail yesterday regarding the Labour party's plans to implement new security measures to counter terrorism in Britain. Among the measures is a move to allow house arrest of terror suspects. My Father is something of an undercover libertarian I fancy and is offended by anything that threatens his freedom. Here's what he wrote:

...at first sight his motives seem incomprehensible. But, listening to the political commentators, they think it a political ploy aimed at the coming election. The idea is that the opposition can be made to appear weak and that the public is more interested in their safety than their liberty. I am not sure that argument holds up since, the same effect on terrorism could be achieved by the Home Secretary applying to a judge. My personal view is that this government instinctively goes for control.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is sharp observation. I had previously written to him to say that I was confused by Blair's (Clarke's) motives. I couldn't see why they would want to risk such a strategy because I couldn't see any obvious gain from it. It's an interesting point isn't it however, that the government may think that people are more interested in safety than liberty. This is the same public that breaks speed limits every day and smokes.

In the Michael Jackson trial Martin Bashir has been forced to appear as a witness but has refused to answer most of the questions he was asked. I can't see why he would want to do that. Apart from the risk of finding himself in hot water with the judge for not co-operating, what does he gain from this, and what does he stand to lose from answering the questions? Surely he would want Jackson found guilty if he was abusing children, surely he would want Jackson to go free if he wasn't. If he has information to help prove things one way or the other, why not come out and say so? I can't help thinking that Bashir is nothing more than a self publicist.

Bill Clinton has been here in Taiwan and managed to upset just about everyone with his views. He upset the mainland just by coming here and meeting Chen Shui Bian, the president. He upset Chen by voicing support for a "one China policy" which is against just about everything Chen stands for. Nice going Bill.

And finally, I don't often answer the OD question of the week, but today I noticed that it's one I want to answer; "What scares you most?" Easy, Tony Blair winng another election and Charles becoming King.