Mixed Bag

I started to write something yesterday, but it just turned into an angry rant about scumbag pot-heads smoking in the street and celebrities that don't get charged when found in possession. I have no idea why the Rausings got away with a police caution. She was caught in possession of crack cocaine, and they found more illegal drugs in their home. How much more evidence do you need to prosecute? They even admitted it. What kind of example is that to my son? See, look I'm off on one again.

Deep breaths - in, and out, in, and out.

Team GB has been told to win 41 medals at Beijing. So far they have 8. Taiwan have 2, but they aren't allowed to call themselves Taiwan, or use their own flag because the Chinese won't let them. They are "Chinese Taipei" when competing in the Olympics. Being told to win 41 medals sounds rather like something from cold war Russia if you ask me. How long do the games go on for? Seems like they have a long way to go to get 41.

China is in trouble yet again this morning over the opening ceremony. Last week it emerged that the beautiful 6 year old who sang at the ceremony was miming because the actual 6 year old singer simply wasn't cute enough. This week it emerged that the parade of ethnic minorities were not ethnic minorities at all, but all Han Chinese dressed in traditional costumes of minority cultures.

There is apparently a 10 mile tailback on the M25 because some clown dressed as Batman is swinging about on a bridge. It's a Fathers for Justice protest of course. As I've said before, these people are very good at grabbing headlines, and when they don't cause public disruption, I'm quite happy for them to protest if it makes them happy. But for all their inventiveness, I have no idea what their demands are. They need to work on their PR. Just getting coverage doesn't do anything.

Stupid story of the week:

Apparently an Australian scientist says we should eat kangaroo instead of beef because, wait for it, kangaroos don't fart so much and therefore produce less greenhouse gases. Dr Wilson claims that kangaroo digestive systems are different to those of cows. It's all down to micro organisms in the gut he says.

I think he's talking bollocks, and here's why; all herbivores are part of a short term carbon cycle. The grass grows and absorbs greenhouse gasses as it does so. The cow eats the grass, it gets broken down in the animals' gut, and the greenhouse gases are released again. Or, if the cow doesn't eat the grass, the grass dies, rots on the ground, and the greenhouse gases are released anyway.

I don't believe that the kangaroo digestive system is any different, but I'm not a biologist and therefore not qualified to pontificate here. I will say that I find it hard to believe that the kangaroo is somehow storing the gases trapped in the grass, therefore if they are not expelled from the kangaroo as gas, they must be expelled in the kangaroo crap, which will then break down as before and release the greenhouse gases.

The only way I can see kangaroos being better for the environment is if Dr Wilson can somehow prove to us that the kangaroos somehow convert the trapped greenhouse gases in the grass into CO2 instead of methane, and then prove that the methane is more damaging than CO2. I'm skeptical.

There is much arguing currently going on about the insidious DNA database, which now contains DNA fingerprints of almost 40,000 children never convicted of anything. There are many more DNA fingerprints of innocent adults of course.

Last month a government funded study concluded that people never convicted of a crime should be removed from the database and recommended that the database be managed by an independent body. This week ministers from opposition parties are putting pressure on the government to remove non convicted people from the database. And the Home Office is coming up with some classic responses: (Quotes from BBC report)

"The Home Office argues that the database has revolutionised the way the police protect the public and is a key instrument in the fight against violent crime, burglaries and rape."

- Yes, no one is arguing that, we want to know why you need the DNA profiles of innocent people!

"It says that in a 12-month period between 2006 and 2007, DNA evidence was used in police investigations into 644 rapes, 222 other sexual offences, 1,900 violent crimes and more than 8,500 domestic burglaries."

- Yes, and how many DNA profiles from innocent people were useful in those cases?

"A Home Office spokeswoman said the government had no plans to introduce a universal database."

- Well that is reassuring, but we still want to know why you are retaining DNA profiles of innocent people.

"Inclusion on the DNA database does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it."

- See, now you're answering a question we didn't want the answer to. We asked why you wanted the DNA of innocent people, and you're effectively telling us being on the database doesn't cost you anythng or make you a criminal. We never suggested that it does cost us anything or make us criminals, though now you come to mention it, there is a tangible cost associated with running this database isn't there, funded by taxpayers? So, the more innocent people you put on the database, the more it costs us, right?