Before I Forget

Before my granddad died, he suffered for around nine years with Alzheimer's. The worst thing wasn't the forgetting things, the not recognising people or the needing round-the-clock care. The worst symptom of Alzheimer's was the depression. He knew he was a burden to those who cared for him, he knew what was happening to him and it broke his heart every day.

Important research into potential treatments for Alzheimer's include research on the use of stem cells harvested from blastocysts - clusters of pre-embryonic cells. At present such research is slowed considerably by the limited supply of such blastocysts, which are made using donated human eggs. The egg donation process is non-trivial and involves a woman taking fertility drugs to cause the eggs to mature and then having them surgically extracted.

However brilliant scientists have come up with a way to create very similar blastocysts using eggs extracted from large mammals, like cows. Obviously this allows many more eggs to be harvested and thus many more blastocysts created and available to researchers. Here's the catch, since the blastocyst has 100% human cell DNA but with bovine mitocondrial DNA it's technically "a part human, part animal" hybrid, which scientists are legally not allowed to create.

So step in Gordon Brown with the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which includes a special clause to allow the creation of human-animal hybrid blastocysts so long as they are destroyed before they reach 14 days "old", i.e. long before they have developed into even an embryo. Problem solved.

Except finding cures and treatments for horrid debilitating diseases is something the Catholic Church really hates. Suddenly we're told MPs have been consulting their local churches about this (Which MPs? And have they also consulted the Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers in their local care homes and hospices? Also I had no idea how many Catholics there are in parliament, didn't Henry the Eighth get rid of them a few centuries back and replace them with the cub scouts?). And after much debate they're now being given a free vote on that clause...

Now a part of me thinks a free vote is the right choice because at least we'll all know which MPs not to vote for next time round.

But another part of me thinks this: I'm an atheist. I'll bet you good money most of the researching scientists are atheists. I don't want to suffer like Granddad did. So I propose that the atheist scientists get on with the research and if the Catholic Alzheimer's sufferers of the future prefer not to use the resulting treatments on principle - fine. You see the law isn't saying anyone would be forced to create hybrid blastocysts, only that they can if they want to. Those people who object to their creation are welcome to not create them.

And isn't this the trouble with religious-based laws? I mean if you're religious about it, don't get an abortion, don't get a gay marriage, don't adopt children into your lesbian family (another clause they are being allowed to opt out of) but don't try to pass laws telling me how to live my life.

If it doesn't go through, I might go offer to donate some eggs to researchers. Anyone know how to do this? Anyone else coming?

Hands Off Heather

Well apologies for the recent radio silence on here and on the podcast too - we were supposed to be going to the Glasgow Comedy Festival, then we weren't, then we were and between that and the Stop The Strip Pub campaign I've not had a minute to myself.

Back to "normal" now. Whatever that is. And I keep looking at the papers and thinking that now it's all over maybe people will leave Heather Mills alone. I really don't understand why she's so hated. What "crimes" is she supposed to have committed? Who has she murdered? As far as I can see what she's done is:

1) Said that Paul MacCartney drinks too much and takes drugs. Of course he does, he's a pop star. No-one complains when Amy Winehouse's Dad says she's on crack, people tut tut about her for taking drugs. Isn't it taking drugs that's against the law - not talking about it?

2) Said that Paul hit her. Is that so hard to believe? That a guy high on booze and drugs might hit his wife? Don't we know that that happens all the time?

3) Poured water on a lawyer. Since when did lawyers become the good guys? It's only water, not water-boarding.

4) Described their relationship differently to the way Paul described it. Because normally ex partners agree completely on these things... She's not employed half her own family on expenses while they trot round Eton on a polo pony!

5) Asked for money after her marriage broke down. Initially we were told she would ask for £100m or more. Later it turned out that she wasn't actually asking for that much. Plus - lest we forget - she has a child to raise. A child whose father is worth at least £400m. A child that needs protection growing up (especially after the way the media has covered the story) and a child that is already accustomed to good care, nannies and expensive schools. So when the news emerged that she had settled for £25.4m, why did the papers not cheer her accepting the much lower figure?

6) Appeared in a topless photo-shoot. You know like the ones The Sun publishes EVERY DAY.

But really, really, the very worst you could say she did was cynically married a pop star for money. So what? How many of us can honestly say we are 100% certain we wouldn't?

And remember there were days when I looked at the papers and found four of the first five pages dedicated to hate-journalism about her. Where is the sense of perspective? What about the murderers, rapists and violent attackers? Where are the victims of corporate-run third world sweat shops? The prisoners of conscience? The victims of NHS cut backs, knife crime and the lack of adequate drug rehabilitation facilities? The women of Darfur facing rape and starvation daily while newspapers in the UK whine about a disabled woman who had the nerve to marry someone famous and it didn't work out.

Calling All Womyn!

I am hosting an open mic freestyle show tomorrow at Womynspace. This is a women-only (trans-friendly) house-centre-castle in Hackney. It's open mic show for any women who want to perform in whatever format: comedy, music, poetry, spoken word, rant, dance, performance art, circus skills, yodeling... I think you get the picture. I'm told we have seven acts booked in already but I have no idea what kinds of acts they are yet. All will be revealed.

The venue, which sadly will only be around for a couple more months now, also hosts everything from welding classes to yoga and a cafe-bar for self-defined "womyn" in the East London area.

If you fancy coming tomorrow (Friday 28th March) it's doors at 7.30pm, show starts 8pm at 4 Corbridge Crescent, E2. See you there. More info here.

Stop The Strip Pub Blog

I have put together a very simple blog for the Stop The Strip Pub campaign. There is also a really nice quote from me in the Hackney Post article about Saturday's protest.

Stop Press: Stop The Strip Pub

Got into a bit of real grass roots activism today. Satchmo's - a bar just up the road from my house - has applied for a license to do strip shows. Now I don't really approve of strip clubs anywhere but seriously - it's in a residential area, just between a mosque and two primary schools. It's the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a very long time. So we went along to protest outside and there was a great turnout, 50-100 people just from the few streets around it, including ten from the Turkish Community Centre, six or so from the mosque and a bunch of school children from one of the local schools. Several journalists appeared and interviewed me and others and took photos so hopefully it will attract some attention. I'll keep you posted.

Off to Million Women Rise now - two protests, one day...

Good News, Badly Presented

Interesting report from the NY Times which has only just come to my attention. In short it turns out that young guys for the most part are pretty respectful of the women they date. Very few in the survey conducted by the Journal of Adolescence appeared to be obsessed with sex, the majority were interested in women because they liked them and wanted to get to know them better.

Now the NY Times seems surprised by this. I'm not, the vast majority of guys I know of all ages are nothing like the noxious stereotypes portrayed everywhere from the lad mags to "teen" films like American Pie. By the same token the number of young women I know who act like Clueless is, well, zero.

Now to start with they title the article "Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter", which plays straight into the idea that sex is some sort of predatory act perpetrated by evil men on innocent unsuspecting women. And then it goes on to say "The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships." Cultural beliefs from the 19th century maybe but I don't know anyone who really believes that.

There is also a fairly undisguised SEX IS WRONG message hidden between the lines. "Let’s give boys more credit,'’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship."

But there's really nothing wrong with "just wanting sex" as long as you are open and honest about what you are doing. There are plenty of young women out there interested to learn about sex through experience, who may be comfortable doing so outside the confines of a relationship. And that's ok, in fact it's pretty healthy to feel that way and have that desire to learn. Even if you're somebody's daughter.

The report concludes that parents should talk to their sons as much about relationship-forming as they do their daughters. Which is a bit like stating the obvious - although I have to say I never had any advice off my parents about relationships (well unless you count thinly veiled hints that I shouldn't expect too much...). Mr Cru by contrast did, but I think that had more to do with the families we came from than any gender issues.

Free Tomorrow?

Mr Cru and I are both appearing tomorrow at a comedy show in aid of a very worthwhile charity. Please come along if you're free - tickets and info here.

Also our political comedy night Comedy Manifesto continues Sunday at the Camden Head, Camden Passage, Angel, 8.30pm, only £5 when you mention the Cru-blog.

Me Looking Cool

Someone has taken some really nice piccies of me performing at the Porthole Comedy Club in Kilburn. Do have a look here, but bear in mind I'm not nearly this cool in real life. If you look this week I'll be near the front of the slide show, but if you find this page in the year 2012, you may have trouble spotting me. I'm playing there again in Sept (29th) though so I'll be sure to strike a few poses for the camera...

Why Does Jezebel Exist?

Obviously Jezebel and I have HISTORY. But I am not afraid to put my hand up when I agree with them on something.

This time however they've gone with really shocking story, followed by offensive coverage of that story. The story is some nasty people are selling a T-Shirt with the slogan "No Means No... well maybe if I'm drunk". Which is obviously a horrid thing to be saying and selling. And I understand that with pressure from Feministing, they have now stopped. Jezebel's response however features the following:

"You can probably blame a religious fetishization of virginity for the fact that a lot of girls say "no" to sex they actually want."

I'm not fan of religion, nor of virginity cults, but I'm pretty horrified by a supposedly pro-women site suggesting that when women say "no" they may "actually want" sex.

They are talking about women who find the guy in question attractive and are feeling aroused in some way and they're equating that with "wanting sex". Now I may not believe that Jesus needs me to stay pure for him but there are a ton of other perfectly valid reasons why women might not want to have sex with someone they fancy even though they are in the mood for sex. Like if they're committed to someone else, if they don't feel like they completely trust the person in question, if it's practically difficult to arrange (no condoms, early start in the morning, lives the other side of town), if they don't feel that it's right emotionally, if they don't want to affect a friendship or working relationship or if they're enjoying the idea of a little delayed gratification. Or a million other things. Or if they'd rather go for a slice of pizza and then watch late night rubbish on TV.

Which means when guys ask women out, even if they think they're really sexy, and even if they happen to be really horny, they often still say "no". And it's not OK to rape them then. Consent is about specific verbal permission, not best-guessing what a woman's hormones might be indicating. And no matter how much their hormones might be raging, if there's one thing women don't want - it's some guy forcing himself on them when they've already said "no".

It's like if you're feeling hungry but have decided to skip dessert because you want to lose weight, then some guy grabs you and physically forces you to eat cake. You don't enjoy the cake, do you? You feel violated and ill.

Virginity cults in any case don't seem to affect the amount of sex young people have - only the amount of access to advice and protection that they get. Members of virginity cults are perfectly capable of consenting, so if they don't that means they don't want sex

Did that all really need explaining? Here's what I'd like explained: Why does anyone read Jezebel?

Swedish Models

Unsurprisingly with all the recent news - there is some discussion at present of how best to deal with the problems of prostitution. Julie Bindel gets very much to the bottom of the matter in this great interview with a professor of criminology.

To me it's seems so obvious that the way to sort the problem out is to criminalise men who pay for sex. Not because I'm some kind of mad man-hating lunatic who wants every guy thrown in prison. And not because I'm some weird anti-sex prude either.

The facts are these: the vast majority of women in prostitution are there under coercion of one sort or another: Trafficked women, drug-addicted women, victims of domestic violence and sexual violence. These women are being put at risk on a daily basis of rape, assault and murder. While fiction-writers may tell us there are "high-class" call girls who enjoy their work, if there are, they are clearly few and far between and do not justify the industry as a whole. n Criminalising someone who works under coercion won't change anything.

Meanwhile the men who visit prostitutes are not coerced to do so in any way. No man is ever forced to visit a prostitute. Men chose quite freely whether to do so or not. So by criminalising paying for sex you render illegal a part of the process that is not coerced and can be stopped dead in it's tracks. Problem gone.

This means of dealing with the sex industry is known as The Swedish Model because it works a treat in Sweden. Hopefully the government will come back to it at some point.

Quick Funny

I'm sure they'll fix this but right now the Times Online says "Veteran British television entertainer Bruce Forsyth celebrates his 80th birthday with Miss Puerto Rico and Miss England" underneath a photo of an Orang-Utan eating leaves!!

Might I Be Paranoid?

It's easy to think you're paranoid. But that doesn't mean everyone's not against you. So three things I noticed.

Firstly I was on the bus going to do a lovely show at ASK pizzeria in Reigate and when the bus pulled up, he pulled up right at the other end of the stop to where I was stood, even though I was the only one at the stop. The driver looked at me in a sort of a horrid way as I got on and I thought "he hates women". Then I thought, don't be stupid he's probably just having a slow day. Then half way down Shoreditch High Street he pulls the bus over where a young attractive woman is sitting on a fence NOT AT A BUS STOP and not indicating she wants to get on the bus and says "alright darling, you not getting on?" in a creepy creepy way. She says "no" and he closes the door and drives on?!! And I think maybe my instincts are actually pretty good.

Secondly I see a London black cab driver is in court answering to 40 cases of attempting to drug and rape women in London. And this comes after all those really angry-making adverts "warning" women not to get into unlicensed minicabs, but to hold out for a proper black cab. One of the victims who was drugged but escaped before being assaulted said she didn't go to the police initially because she didn't think it was a big thing. Where are the poster campaigns saying "Women, Think You Might Have Been Drugged? Come Forward Immediately And Help Us Keep Other Women Safe From Rapist Bastards"?? Met not bothering to put those ones up?

Thirdly this article. A restaurant "accidentally" put the phrase "Suck My Dick Fuck Face" on to a restaurant bill for a table of ten young women. Their defense? It was only meant for kitchen staff to see and shouldn't have been on the bill. The restaurant has apologised, given the money to charity and offered the women a free meal. Would you back to a restaurant that thought it was perfectly ok for staff to jokingly write "Suck My Dick Fuck Face" on your bill as long as only the kitchen staff saw it?

One fucked up world this one...

Houston, We Have More Issues

Another message from the author of Ink and Indigo (cool knitting blog!) really had me reeling:

"I was both disgusted and unsurprised when I read your story and the story above. Two years ago, when walking from my grandmother's house to my sister's house on Christmas day. a bloke grabbed me, pushed me against a wall and pissed on my leg. I pushed him away and tried to run off, waving at a car driving close by that didn't appear to care. About five minutes later, I was grabbed by the same bloke, the same car still close, by the neck and asked why I "was trying not to fuck" him. I responded by screaming and kicking him in the bollocks. I ran off again, and ran to a phonebox, dialled 999 and explained someone was trying to rape me. They explained they were sending a car to "assess" the situation, during which time, the bloke started kicking in the glass in the phonebox and a people carrier full of men pulled up shouting "where's the Bitch?". Luckily, the police pulled up two seconds later and bundled me inside the van, where I lay on the floor crying in fear. Ten minutes later the police informed me they'd spoken to the offender and driver of the vehicle full of blokes that had been following me and told them to go home. Apparently I was stupid for believing it was attempted gang-rape, as the police said it was "drunk Pakis". The following morning, I rang the police to give a statement, only to find that there was no record of such an incident happening.

Now whenever people talk of people "crying rape" I point out the complete incompetence and institutional sexism of the police force.

I hope you're ok."

If anyone else has a story they would like to shame on the subject - anonymously or otherwise, I am happy to post them up and think it's important these stories are heard. You can email me through my blogger profile page.

Liberal Life

Just read this - saves me the job of writing it! Johann Hari on Sharia Law.

Light Relief

Quick reminder - I am still hosting a weekly political comedy night every Sunday in Angel. It's called Comedy Manifesto and the show starts 8.30pm (doors at 8pm) at the Camden Head Pub, Camden Passage, Angel Islington. £5 when you mention the blog (£7 otherwise). We have the fantastic Debra-Jane Appelby headlining this week so it'll be a great show.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy or whatever then I also host a regular comedy night with new acts and experienced folks trying out new stuff. That's every Monday at the Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court, down the side of the Wyndham's Theatre near Leicester Square. Again it's 8pm for 8.30pm and £5 if you mention the blog.

Houston, We Are Not The Only Ones With A Problem!

Thanks very much to everyone who offered sympathy and advice about my abusive caller and troubles getting the police to take the matter seriously. The story was re-published on both the F-Word and Dollymix and I had some responses from those too. One email sent to the F-Word particularly struck me and, with permission from author Danielle Kemm (quote "You can use my name, I don't see why I should be ashamed or scared!"), here is what she said:

"I was just reading Kate's post about how she was harassed and the police didn't seem to care, and I think it's sad that this seems to be the norm, rather than the exception.

I had a drink spiked on a night out about 6 months ago, I knew as soon as I woke up that something was wrong, because I remember being relatively sober, and then a total blackout.

So my mum took me to the police station, I took the clothes that I had been wearing in a carrier bag, and didn't shower in case they needed samples or whatever. Turns out this was pure wishful thinking.

I asked for a test to confirm my drink had been spiked. I was then asked "Do you think anything *untoward* has happened?" I replied that I didn't know, as I couldn't remember a thing, as generally happens when your drink is spiked.

I was then told that I would "know" if anything had happened (depsite the fact that if you've been drugged you wouldn't be capable of resistance, so there would be no bruising anyway. Clearly even if you're drugged you're expected to kick and scream for it to be considered rape). And then she said that the purpose of drink spiking was rape (although she skirted around the actual word), basically implying that my drink hadn't been spiked, as I hadn't been raped (her
assumption, maybe because I wasn't sobbing hysterically?)

Then she actually had the cheek to ask me if I drunk often, and how often I drunk!

She refused to do anything after this, not even file a report for my missing jacket and phone, which I imagine she might have done if I hadn't come in to waste her time on some silly suspicion.

She told me to go to the hospital if I "really thought" my drink had been spiked. Which I did, only to be told somewhat more sympathetically that it was against hospital policy to carry out the test, given the sheer number of requests (so clearly there is a problem, which the police seem determined to turn a blind eye to) and that they should have done a test there and then at the station.

Of course, by this time, my 12 hours were up, and it was pointless to go back a demand a test.

My mum later told me that after relating this story to some people she worked with, she was told of several personal experiences with drink spiking at the same nightclub, and apparently it happens on a weekly basis there. Something that you would assume would make the police more receptive to such complaints, rather than less.

I have since lost all trust and respect for our so called protectors of the law."

Thanks very much for sharing that with us Danielle, that is awful and I think it's really important that people hear about these things.

Houston, We Have A Problem

Well I spend a lot of time here on the Cru-blog addressing issues of misogynist violence, abuse and hatred. My first-hand experiences - with the exception of my abusive childhood - are generally at the less threatening end of the scale - guys shouting stuff at me when I'm on stage or whistling at me in the street, that kind of thing. Not nice but, for me anyway, not something that affects my life too much.

Recently that has changed. In December last year I had a crank phone call from a male voice who asked if this was the number for a brothel. I said no and asked where he got the number and he hung up. I figured it was either a genuine idiot mis-reading a number he'd read in a phone box or someone I knew a bit drunk thinking they were being funny. The number came up as "the caller withheld their number".

A few weeks later Mr Cru answered my phone and again a male voice asked if it was a brothel. He said no and again the guy hung up.

Another time Mr Cru answered and the guy hung up immediately.

Another couple of weeks later and I answered one again. This time he had a lot more to say - still asking if it was a brothel, asking if I was a hooker (his word, not mine) and asking me to describe myself physically ("how big are your tits?", etc). He also mentioned the area in which I live - which frightened me as evidently he knows my address. I told him I was going to contact the police if he didn't stop.

This afternoon I had two more calls, back to back from the same voice. This time he said he was coming round straight away to "fuck" me "really hard" and a lot of very very unpleasant things. He also said my name (I haven't told him so that's another frightening sign, he evidently has access to my details). And he told me that I was a "bitch" and that this was why he was making these calls and if I didn't want them I should "stop being a bitch". He then told me he worked for the local police - and re-iterated that he was coming round immediately to "fuck" (i.e. rape) me.

Of course it would be the one morning this week when Mr Cru was out, so by this stage I was in a total panic. So I called the police. I explained the situation in full, and that I was home alone. They suggested I contact my mobile phone company (yes really - as though the problem was the calls rather than the threat of rape - and also as if I should investigate the crime myself, rather than them doing it) and then said they'd "try" and send someone round. They also said I shouldn't use the word "rape" since the caller hadn't used it (the caller also didn't say he was coming round to "fuck" me but only if I gave full consent... the threat is obviously rape).

I was then home alone for two hours. I did ring O2 and they said they absolutely could try to trace the call but they would need to speak to the police to do so, not me. As I thought.

Then Mr Cru got back - in a rush, having come from Leicester to get to me and make sure I was ok. The police arrived more than two and a half hours after I called 999. They sent two male officers (despite me explaining that the caller had claimed to work for the police, etc, surely it was obviously a better idea to send a woman?), who refused to show Mr Cru any ID and instead told him to go outside into the street (leaving me indoors alone) and look down the road at the police car parked there.

Then, finally they took down the info about what had happened. They were mostly interested in some pretty odd stuff like what make my mobile phone was, and whether I had called the police for any other reasons recently... But I went along with it to try to get to the bottom of the situation. Then they asked "Are you not too bothered about this?" in a way that they clearly wanted me to say "I'm not too bothered". Of course I said "Yes I'm terrified I'm going to get violently raped"

Then they left telling me (a) to keep a diary of when the calls happen in future and (b) to give them a ring if there were further developments and (c) that they would send me a letter by the end of the week letting me know what was happening.

Not a very satisfactory state of affairs. I work in an industry where I'm forever giving my number out to anybody and everybody who might have work for me, so it's not really feasible to figure out who it is. I have a couple of potential suspicions but definitely no clear answer. Advice - legal and practical - very welcome.

What A Dumb-Ass Article!

I can't say I subscribe to the Journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research. They have won awards though for being the "think tank of the year" and they call themselves progressive so you would think their stuff would be worth a read. However before I even got as far as downloading the title article from their latest edition we hit a problem:

"Jean Edelstein, PPR reporter, argues that liberal middle class feminists are letting women down by frowning at rape and ‘honour’ killing headlines but not tackling this violence."

Shouldn't it be the police who tackle violence? Are we supposed to form a rampaging feminist army and march through the land? I'm up for it but I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Lets take the issues of rape and "honour" killing as two separate things (although I acknowledge rape as an "honour" crime is another well documented problem).

Rape affects women from all backgrounds - rich and poor, white and black and every other ethnicity. It IS offensive and wrong to suggest that rape is a a predominantly working class or minority ethnic problem. And that sort of thinking is one of the things that stops women coming forward because (a) they don't think they can have been a rape victim because they're white and middle class and (b) they feel they might bring their ethnic group into disrepute if they report.

"Honour" killing and "honour" violence (such as the murder of Banaz Mahmood, pictured) are problems which we see as being specific to certain cultures and communities. Now personally I see a very tight connection between the guy who murders his daughter because she refuses an arranged marriage and the (quite possibly white, middle class) guy who murders his wife when he finds out she's having an affair. It's men trying to control the women in their lives, particularly sexually. However the difference, at least in theory, is whether or not there is some support among the relevant community for those murders and the assumptions (sometimes valid, sometimes not) are that "honour" killing is done with the approval of the community and wife-murder isn't.

If however we accept that "honour" killing is a distinct issue affecting women in certain minority groups in the UK then how ridiculous for an article to blame that on white middle-class women! here's who might be to blame for "honour" killing: the actual murderers, other people from the communities where it happens who encourage the practice, those in these communities who help cover up the murders, religious and cultural leaders who condone it, police who fail to respond to calls, government officials who fail to provide adequate funding for safe houses and in-community policing, support and education, anti-feminists who spread the message that women should be treated as chattels. Here's who isn't to blame: me. I'm white and middle class and a feminist and I haven't "honour"-killed anybody, not for really ages. To say I frown on "honour" killing is like saying I think murder is naughty. No, I think it's an abomination and an outrage and if there is something I can do to prevent it - I will be there to do it right away. But there isn't.

Blaming other women for crimes committed by men against women is just a form of abuse of women. That it's being published by an organisation who claim to be a quality progressive think tank, is a disgrace.

Police Camera

Do not read this if you don't have a very strong stomach. Via Feministing, a US story. The issue of police mistreatment of women who come to them for help. The woman in the video was a victim of an assault of some sort, when they police arrived to sort it out - they accused her of disorderly conduct, arrest her and violently strip-search her with male officers. We've heard claims of this sort before, the difference here is - she's got it on video. If this doesn't lead to a large-scale review of police policy and all the officers involved facing criminal charges then it will be a major outrage.

And if they treat victims like this - imagine how they treat suspected criminals...

The Real McCain

Seems like John McCain has wrapped up the Republican nomination and I am starting to feel very uncomfortable with the number of people telling me that he's "better than Romney, Huckerbee* or Guiliani". That's like being the world's most sophisticated Telly-Tubby - there isn't a prize!! McCain, let us not forget, wants to take America to war with Iran, Pakistan and very probably any number of other countries. Brave News Films have some coverage. Here are a few reasons to be very afraid of him:

Foreign Policy:

• "Naive to exclude nukes; naive to exclude attacking Pakistan." (Aug 2007)

Abortion:

• Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Civil rights:

• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
• Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

Death Penalty

• More death penalty; stricter sentencing. (Jan 2000)
• Pro-death penalty; more prisons; increased penalties. (Jul 1998)
• Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
• Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
• Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)

Education:

• Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
• Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)

For a fuller version see On The Issues here. Also Johann Hari has a great piece about him.

*When I try to write Huckerbee on my computer my spell-checker tries to "correct" it to Bloodsucker.

Sssssh!

Sorry for the rather sparse posting - although there is still heated debate going on about the benefits or not of bigger boobs on the post below - and my podcast, linked right, is alive and well too if you fancy a slightly political laugh. Failing that you can pass the time by looking at this adorable kitten... (she's called Pandora and is no longer mine - now in a good loving home...)

I am gearing up for tomorrow nights Hackney Empire New Act of the Year competition - which if you still didn't hear - I'm in!! If you're London-based there are still tickets for the final if you click here. Or you should be able to pick one up on the door too.

TV Boobs

Never watch Extreme Makeover. Did that really need saying? I was innocently perched on the sofa this morning with a couple of hot buttered crumpets and a mug of tea not paying much attention to the TV when a "top cosmetic surgeon" suddenly appeared talking about breast reduction surgery (having just performed three - or is that six - for three women). This is what he said "breast reduction surgery is one of the most satisfying surgeries you can perform because the patient wakes up and suddenly they're not handicapped any more..." Yes ladies apparently larger than average boobs are a "handicap".

Better go and clean the crumpet and tea splatters off my TV screen now...

Slightly Serious Funny

Not suitable for those of a nervous disposition. From The Onion - a very funny spoof video that, for me anyway, highlights the huge double-standard in our media: the acceptance of the misogyny inherent in the pornography that is seen as normal and mainstream, versus the outrage we can see over a single word when it suits the stations to focus on it.

Helen Fisher, Anti-Feminist of the Year (So Far)

Helen Fisher is not only a feature of the BBC website, but also apparently the economic summit in Davos. Shocking to discover her anti-feminist drivel is being circulated so widely.

She starts well, claiming she is "definitely not a feminist", in which case she should presumably reject all the advantages feminism has garnered for her - like the vote, the right to work and the chance to express her (wrong) opinions all over the place.

Then the BBC informs us that her word is FACT. "[this] is not psycobabble. She bases her findings on archaeological evidence, MRI brain scans, genetics and large-scale surveys of how men and women behave"

She's telling people how to hire people to work for them. "On average, women gather more data, consider the context, are intuitive, have a sympathising mind and think more long-term. Ms Fisher calls it "web thinking". Men, on the other hand, are more focused, think linear, focus on rules and the short-term - "step thinking"."

Sure on average that may (or may not) be true. But that isn't the way you should hire people, based on averages. On average men are taller than women. But that doesn't mean we should hire only male firefighters, we should hire any man or woman tall enough and capable enough to do the job effectively.

And if you don't believe the rubbish about "testosterone makes you think differently" she's got proof: "Research shows that film scripts written by women are more complex and have more ambiguous endings than those written by men."

Which would also constitute (in my world) conclusive proof that the barriers to entry in the world of movie script-writing are higher for women than men.

Here's how wrong her analysis is, she at one point says "[some rubbish theory] may be the reason why women are better talkers", ignoring the fact that recent research shows women do not talk more than men, we just get ignored more.

And when she describes the male-female differences, a lot of them sound to me like subtle "digs" at women:

"Men can have tunnel vision, women may fail to get to the point."

So men are focussed and women stupid?

"Women find it difficult to counter aggression. When men push back, it earns them the respect of other men."

So women can't handle aggression and men thrive on it. Fuck off!

"When women apologise, they are not really sorry. For men it's a serious affair, a perceived weakening of their status."

Women are fickle and don't mean what they say. Men aren't. Excuse me while I barf here.

Her overall point is you need to have some men and some women on your team to benefit from the two utterly distinct ways of thinking and operating. But there are more than two distinct ways of thinking and operating, we all know creative people, problem-solvers, diligent workers, inspiring people and people with great social skills. The balance of which of those you need for your team depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Expecting women to think one way and men another does two things:

1) It prevents women (and men) being considered for roles they may be more than capable of because assumptions have been made about their ability based on their gender.

2) It throws open the door for prejudice and justifies it.

Your Help Needed Twice (Please!)

Firstly I am in the final of a brilliant competition (hurray!). The Hackney Empire New Act Of The Year Final! And I'd love it if you came along and supported me. You'll have to buy tickets online for this one at £12.50 each. The night features 14 up and coming new acts, one of which is me, plus Arthur Smith as compere. It's Sat Feb 2nd and I really hope to see you there.

Secondly I am opening a new show in London THIS SUNDAY! The pub are in two minds about whether this will take off so we need great audiences for the first few weeks to show them how much enthusiasm there is out there. So I need you to (a) come if you can and (b) bring your friends or forward this info to your friends who may be able to come. Here are the official details:
********************************
Comedy Manifesto is a brand new political comedy night in Angel this Sunday (27th Jan) and every sunday. It features a bunch of very cool comics talking hilariously about politics and participating in a news-based quiz - think Mock The Week or Have I Got News... only better, and live, with you there!
At Camden Head Pub, Camden Passage, Angel, Islington. Doors 8pm, show 8.30pm. £7 or £5 if you mention Cru-blog, or for the first week only FREE if you bring two friends (who still get in for a fiver each!)
This week's show will feature a mixture of stand-up and banter with me as host, panelists Stewart McCure, David Whitney and David Mulholland (that's one English, one Aussie, one Scot and one Yank - so we should have a fair range of opinions...!) and fantastic headliner Hils Barker who you can read about here.
********************************

Beauvoir Century

As planned I was on BBC Radio Four Woman's Hour today talking about Simone De Beauvoir. I thought it all went very well, and thanks to those people who got in touch to say that they heard and enjoyed it. You can listen to it on "Listen Again" here.

Tesco Nappy Rash

Thanks to Katie Toms on the London Feminist Network for alerting me to this one. Tesco, for 3-6 month olds.

Remember when Dove told us "Talk to your daughter, before the beauty industry does"? Looks like the myths about female beauty are being foisted on kids well before they can even talk.

If this makes you just a teeny teeny bit mad you can write to:

Tesco Customer Service
PO Box 73
Baird Avenue
Dryburgh Industrial Estate
Dundee
DD1 9NF

Maths and More Maths

The Qualification and Curriculum Authority (who I had never heard of until today) have announced that they think Maths A-Level is too easy and a further qualification should be introduced to stretch brighter students.

Now firstly the solution to exams getting easier should surely be to make them harder and extend the curriculum, not introduce new extra exams.

Secondly there already is a qualification called Further Maths A-Level (I should know, I've got one). So it sounds like they might as well be saying "cutting a whole lawn with nail scissors takes ages, there should be a machine with rotating blades and a small engine that does this job...".

Finally I think the trouble really with maths is that everything else is being dumbed down. Maths is about thinking and modern school curricula leave so little room for thinking that by the time students get as far along their educational careers as the sort of maths that requires thinking, they've long since been taught not to think.

The way to prevent dumbing-down in education is to nationalise the exam boards. The very idea that different exam boards compete to supply exams in schools is ridiculous. Schools, under pressure themselves to beat their own previous exam pass rates inevitably shop around for the easiest exams. Certainly I was bored senseless at school, when I wasn't being bullied by the other students or vicitmised by the teachers.

Now the law in the UK says:

"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."

Certainly the schools I went to (which were supposed to be the better ones in the area) were not efficient, at all, we learnt the same things over and over again, long after most of us had memorised them. And if you consider me (a) being smart for my age, well ahead of the rest of the class most of the time, and (b) being an emotional disaster due to the abuse I was getting at home, you could definitely claim the places weren't suitable for my ability, aptitude and special needs. Which made me wonder if it might not be technically illegal to send your child to one of the particularly bad state schools in the UK...?

Homeschooling is certainly on the rise and has benefits for those who have the time and energy to do it. Sadly it also has benefits for those who wish to indoctrinate their kids with religious nonsense/fascist views/etc.

Simone at 100

Well as some of you will know the 100year anniversary of Simone De Beauvoir's birth is coming up and your favourite blogger (me, that is) has been invited to join the team on BBC Radio Four's Women's Hour next Tuesday (10am GMT, available online for those outside the UK) to discuss her legacy and relevance today. If any regular Cru-bloggers feel Ms De Beauvoir's work has affected their life, I would love to hear about it in comments. I'll post at greater length at some point.

Me Live On The Radio Tonight!

Just a quick one. I'm on BBC Radio Five Live sometime between 11.45pm and 12.30am (GMT) tonight talking about chivalry. I think you can get it on the internet if you are non-UK based. They are sending a posh car any minute now to pick me and I am hoping my neighbours have their curtains open...!

You Shouldn't Have, Thanks!

There's nothing so flattering for a blogger than having the author of a mainstream media piece that you've criticised respond in person, and run out of things to say so quickly that she resorts to unfounded personal insults. So thanks very much Karen Barichievy. I criticised you here. And you countered here. You answered only one of my points - arguing that you did in fact know more than one rich guy, and that they are in fact ALL horrible. But as I mention in my piece I've met nice rich guys, I'm friends with some. If all the ones you met were horrid to you then (1) maybe you were very unlucky. Or (2) maybe they were only horrid to you - perhaps because you entered the situation with such a negative attitude. Or (3) maybe you just go for the wrong kind of guy. Actually I might even suspect that (4) maybe you assumed the nice guys were poor and avoided them.

You don't bother to address any of my other points but you do seem to know so much about me...

"... one rather po-faced Guardianista calling herself Cruella..."
If you listen to my podcast you'll see I read the Independent, and usually the Mail or the Express to see what else is in the press. My facial expression, like that of so many people I know, varies throughout the day. I try to keep "po" down to 5 or 10% of the time.

"...living in a vegan commune in Archway..."
Is there one? How do I apply?

"...the whole ungroomed, too-intellectual-to-brush-my-hair look..."
Ha! Nice, good image. Doesn't quite correspond with the photo you can actually see on my blog but I don't care. I might stop brushing my hair...

...when you get round to actually responding to my points Karen! Tut tut tut.

News Podcast 17th Jan

As usual extra material by David Mulholland.

Click here to get your own player.
Text:

Science

A group of scientists have created what they claim is the “darkest ever” material. They say it is the closest thing yet to the ideal perfect absorber, which absorbs light perfectly at all angles and over all wavelengths. They have not revealed how the material was manufactured but it is expected that a key ingredient was Max Clifford’s soul.

And in Anti-Science

The church of scientology is trying to suppress a video of Tom Cruise talking about how wonderful Scientology is. Now you know you’ve really flipped out when the scientologists are embarrassed about you. A personal adviser has allegedly suggested to Tom that if he’s too wacky for the scientologists he might consider joining Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign.

Foreign Affairs

The war in Iraq may have cost us a fortune in taxes, inflation and the cost of oil but there is one commodity that has been getting cheaper and cheaper: heroin! Turns out that when you needlessly attack a nation and turn it in to a recruiting paradise for Al Qaeda, they generally make the effort to show up. And with them they bring the technology to grow opium poppies. So next time you hear someone complain that the government is doing almost nothing to help the 40,000 heroin users in the country, remind them about the positive side of the war on terror.

Finance

A new scandal is emerging over the selling of Premium Protection Insurance or PPI. Apparently people are being charged a fortune for insurance against being unable to make payments on their loans. Further the insurance may not pay out if you lose your job or become ill. So i.e. the only two reasonable reasons why you might be unable to pay. On the upside if you’re abducted by aliens you should be able to claim.

Newspapers

Sun owner, Rupert Murdock has said he thinks the paper devotes too much space to celebrity news. Editor Rebekah Wade responded saying “He can’t understand why we devote so many pages to Big Brother”. Rebekah, no-one has ever understood that. Jade Goody’s mum probably picks up the Sun and goes “I’ve seen enough of Jade this week, where’s the real news?”.

The Daily Express meanwhile ran with a shock horror front page story claiming that a report shows British taxpayers money is being spent paying for “hate-based” education programs in Palestine. Except of course that if you read to the end of the story, the report doesn’t say anything of the sort. The money we send in aid is spent on doctors and teachers, water and electricity supplies and on supporting refugees. What in fact they are claiming is that funding positive activities frees up funds which COULD be spent in more sinister areas.

Now I’m not all that sure that the Palestinian government has a great deal of free funds to spend as they like. While we may be paying for a few doctors, I hardly think there’s a comprehensive system of high quality public healthcare in the region. So to describe any money they have as “freed-up” does seem odd. Also a policy of not sending aid to such places seems to me a bit like saying if we stopped buying vegetables for children, they’d spend their own money on them instead of buying sweets.

Brilliantly though after a more or less 100% fictional article clearly designed to generate hatred for Palestinians and for governments who try to help those overseas they finish with a phone in number. Seriously, it says this: Should British taxes go to Muslim fanatics? Yes? Dial 0901 031 1501.

Sport

Fabio Capello is being investigated on charges of tax fraud. Clearly there’s been a terrible mix up. I mean tax fraud is the kind of crime a clever person would commit. Footballers are usually restricted to getting drunk on alcopops and driving a half a million pound car into a bollard.

Podcast will resume tomorrow

I was hoping to be back with a podcast today but too much else to do. Back tomorrow.

News Podcast 14th Jan

Today's news podcast with, as usual, extra material by David Mulholland.

Click here to get your own player.


Text:

Health

Scientists say they have used stem cells to make the stripped-out shell of a heart beat again. The lead researcher on the case said Mrs Thatcher didn’t feel a thing.

Also in health Gordon Brown has done something sensible – he’s copied one of Dr Evan Harris’s #hallelujah ideas and proposed that instead of having an opt-in organ donor system, we switch to an opt-out one. This could potentially help 7,000 people awaiting a donor organ in the UK. The Express responded in horror with the headline “Outcry at plan to strip organs without consent”, failing to mention that the organs in question would mainly be coming from dead people, not just those who’ve fallen asleep on the bus.

Immigration

A new application on Facebook allows users to take the Britishness test which many immigrants face when they apply for citizenship of the UK. The average Briton, it emerges, fails the test. So presumably in the future those who pass will be promptly deported while those who fail will be welcomed with open arms. So I logged on. And failed it. What a stupid test. Here’s a sample question: What proportion of first-time voters used their vote in the 2001 elections? So what they’re asking is: How disillusioned are young people with the state of politics in this country? Is it (a) very, (b) very very or (c) I’m under 24 and I don’t give a shit what the answer to this question is.

Another question asks which minority ethnic group is the most numerous in the UK and gives the possible answers Black Carribean, Pakistani, Indian and good grief how should I know we don’t have them round our way.

Amazingly not included on the test was a question on the recipe for Britain’s favourite dish – the chicken tikka masala.

I personally think we could do away with the whole test in exchange for simply sitting applicants in a room and bringing out a plate of Jaffa Cakes. Anyone not seen eating at least three clearly isn’t British. This would keep out the diabetics too. That is a joke by the way, before anyone starts writing in.

Sport

Para-olympian Oscar Pistorus has been told he won’t be allowed to enter the Beijing Olympics as an able-bodied athlete. The runner has two artificial feet which actually work better than ordinary feet for running. The ruling is bad news for Professor Stephen Hawkin who had hoped to enter the marathon in a Nissan Micra.

Papers

The Daily Express has a lengthy piece today about how women love dark and brooding men. The first part of the article is about Daniel Day-Lewis who allegedly scared another actor in his latest film, although that sounds like one of those rubbish stories that are just written to help publicise the film. Still fair enough. Daniel Day-Lewis, dark, brooding and sexy. The thing is then they list the other dark, brooding men that women love: Marlon Brando, ok, Jose Morinho, alright, Marco Pierre-White, maybe, Gordon Brown, no, and finally Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin!? Dark? His face is the colour of uncooked pastry. He makes John Major look ruddy.

On page six, the Daily Express dedicated about four column inches to the news that British troops could be in Afghanistan for, and I quote, decades, then the whole of page seven gets back to the important news that the nine millionth enquiry into the death of Princess Diana is planning to interview her butler. The remainder of the paper focuses on the shocking news that some famous people may have had sex and offers it’s readers an exclusive chance to win a caravan...

The Independent had it’s own little crack at being ridiculous in their fashion pages with an article about accessories cooing over a Chloe clutch-bag. The thing is the bag is shown being carried by a model in a see-through blouse and no bra. Here’s my fashion advice for the new season – walk around with your tits showing and no-one will notice if you’ve got a cheap handbag.

A Bridge Too Far

If you are a bit of a geek (and if not what are you doing on the internet on a Sunday afternoon?) you will enjoy this cool article about the world's most amazing bridges.

Shit Yourself Thin!

Am I the only person cynical to think that the authors of the press release behind this story were actually trying to increase sales of sugar-free gum? Apparently chewing too much of certain types of gum can cause weight loss, up to 20% of your bodymass. That would be more or less exactly the difference between, say, a normal woman and Kate Moss. So don't chew gum kids unless you want to look like a supermodel...

The truth is that sorbitol, found in many sugar-free products has a mild laxative effect. As long as you're not having very much you shouldn't notice any effects. When I was a kid though one day a lorry overturned on the motorway next to the school field (you can tell how old I am - my school had a field) and spilled hundreds of thousands of packets of Velamints (containing sorbitol) onto the road. Of course the kids hurdled the fence and collected pocketfuls of the "free sweets". The following day was the annual school trip to Colchester Castle, the capital of Roman Britain. The trip was spoiled somewhat by the fact that every child in the whole school had uncontrollable diarrhea and there was no toilet on the bus, unless you count the floor.

I'll end the description there in case anyone reading this is eating. Trust me enough sorbitol makes you lose weight, fast, in a way that you don't want to.

How (Not) To Marry A Millionaire

This article has so much wrong with it it's hard to know where to start. But lets run in the order the article says these things.

Firstly a survey reveals 75% of women say they "would marry for money". Now that's not much of a statistic because we don't know:

1) How much money - millions? billions? a tenner?
2) How much compromise they would make for this money? Would they have to like the guy too? Fancy him?
3) How poor were they to start with? I mean sure I'd marry for money rather than watch myself and my own kids starve. Who wouldn't?

But lets go along with the number anyway. Now Karen Barichievy, our resident expert, explains that she dated a rich guy for four years. And based on her survey of, erm, one rich guy she informs us that they all don't like to go out and party. In fact "for nearly four years I had a 10pm curfew. My (now ex) banker boyfriend insisted on it.". Curfew? that ain't a boyfriend - that's a slave-owner.

She continues to expand on what all wealthy men are like based on her survey of, as I mentioned, only one such man. They have a limited sex drive, are anally retentive about household organisation and wear CK undies and Patek watches. So now you know. Then apparently they'll take you on flash holidays and ignore you in favour of chatting away on a Blackberry the whole time. Anyone think Ms Barichievy's boyfriend just didn't really like her all that much?

Eventually she realised that "such men will always love their money and their jobs more than you". Another bold conclusion on the basis of a single specimen. In defence/critique of men both rich and poor... Some poor guys might love their Playstation more than they love you, or their Internet porn. And some rich guys might love you, and you might actually be the kind of person who gives their partner enough space to have a career as well as a relationship.

Having "realised" this our unlikely heroine joined a dating agency for millionaires (against her own declared interest) and was disappointed to find that the guys she was introduced to weren't a great match for her hobbies and interests - which after all her puff about how rich guys like to be tidy and organised included "spit and sawdust pubs and camping". Except that she'd already insisted on one big criteria - she only wanted to meet millionaires. Maybe the problem was this: the average dating agency doesn't have thousands of clients - they have to introduce you to someone.

I've always thought the best plan was to make money myself, rather than trying to date it out of people. But I can sympathise with people - guys or girls - who consider it a bonus in a potential partner, who wants to be penniless? Of course Ms Barichievy knows this herself - presumably why she's writing piffle easy-to-sell articles for The Times.

Chop Chop

I mentioned briefly in my podcast on Jan 7th about the recent Which? survey that had revealed that cosmetic surgery salespeople were pressuring women in to surgery they really didn't want. Today Julie Bindel in the Guardian interviews cosmetic surgery guru Wendy Lewis and very politely refrains from pointing out that she looks kindof freaky. Not that a woman should be judged on her appearance but when one spends her life telling other women how great cosmetic surgery is - you would be forgiven a quick peek to see how well it's going for her. And Sadie Nicholas in the Daily Mail has a lengthy piece too - for some reason accompanied by a photo of a very glamourous model with dotted lines on her face - although whether that's supposed to be showing us, before, after, the ideal we're supposed to aim for or the ridiculousness of suggesting already stunning women could be put forward for surgery I do not know.

What all of the reports show is that cosmetic surgery is being sold in a false, aggressive and dangerous way. And not just a little bit, like the way double glazing people or dodgy estate agents sell things - lies, pressure, tricks. There is even a case where a saleswoman waits until a client is sedated for one lot of surgery and tries to sell her a couple more things while she is passing out. There are outright lies in the published before and after photos - which in one case are of different people. People are sold botox while they are drunk, with the procedure performed on the spot.

I'm not saying no-one should have access to surgery if they want it, that's up to them. However, we need a significantly better regulated industry. We need an end to time-sensitive discounts on surgery, bulk discounts and salespeople working on targets and bonuses. We need to regulate the qualifications needed by surgeons, the hours they can work and the complaint and problem-resolution system. We need our media to highlight the risks and downsides of surgery - such as the ones experienced by the women on this site - and sales people and adverts to be obliged to explain those risks. Given how out of control the situation is I think a cooling-off period is probably a good idea, just a couple of weeks to make sure people really want what they're being offered.

But we also need to create a society that puts less pressure on women to look "perfect" and to value themselves purely on their appearance. That means loads more "ordinary" women in the media, an end to air-brushing and an end to all that lad mag nonsense.

News Podcast 11th Jan

As usual extra material by David Mulholland. Note that some of my podcasts have, against my wishes, been listed as "explicit" - which I kindof disagree with. I mean I do use "bad" language but to me that's different to being "explicit" which would be if you needed a box of Kleenex by the end. That shouldn't be a problem...

Click here to get your own player.

Text:

And we start today, tastefully enough, with an obituary

Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb everest has died. This means that now the most famous New Zealander in the world is ... a dead bloke. The BBC Website responded with a “Have Your Say” page. I like the idea of letting the public comment on stories but they always pick the wrong stories. It never says Have Your Say: Is Gordon Brown A Cunt? Instead it’s have your say on the death of Sir Edmund Hillary. What’s to say – he climbed a mountain, now he’s dead.

Agriculture

Bird flu has been confirmed in three mute swans found in Dorset. They might have been diagnosed much sooner if they’d just told someone they were feeling ill. It’s the H5N1 strain which I think means they caught it off that little dustbin-shaped thing in star wars. The health protection agency is warning anyone who may have come into contact with a swan to come forward. You’d think you’d know wouldn’t you. I mean either you did shag the swan or you didn’t. If there’s any Bill Clinton-esque gray area over whether you and the swan were just friends, you want to stop taking all that LSD.

Politics

And yesterday’s planned love-in on nuclear power went ahead as planned. The number of reactors approved was officially “several”. And with the prospect of government subsidies not ruled out, there’s every chance we could all be paying to have our house prices thrilling boosted by the proximity of dangerous radioactive isotopes. Ministers said the companies running the plants would have to bear the full cost of storing all nuclear waste. Except that nuclear waste hangs around for ten thousand years. So if you were a responsible company you would fulfil your duty to shareholders by run the plant til it stops making money, paying huge dividends then declaring bankruptcy. And if you were an irresponsible company you’d run the plant til it stops making money, pay huge bonuses to the board and then declare bankruptcy. So it’s win-win as long as you’re on the board and you’ve got lots of stock options, like, ooh, Gordon Brown’s brother.

The other frightening thing is the way the government is acting as though approving a few nuclear power stations has somehow solved the carbon emissions crisis. Greenpeace estimates the new stations will contribute to a 4% decrease in carbon emissions by 2025. Listen ... that’s the sound of a hundred million Bangladeshis breathing a big sigh of relief.

Still in politics

And it appears not everyone is quietly screwing the public over to make a tidy buck. No Tony Blair is very loudly screwing the public over for his tidy buck. He’s taken a half-a million a year part time job with an American Investment bank. Half a million a year for a part-time job? How are his colleagues going to feel when they see him swanning out of the office at lunchtime with his Rolex clinking on his wrist.

Military Affairs

The only officer to have been charged with a crime of any sort over the Abu Ghraib debacle has been quietly cleared and sent on his way. Lt Col Steven L Jordan was the only person in any kind of position of authority to be convicted over Abu Ghraib and he was only convicted of talking about the case when it was supposed to be a secret. Now he’s been cleared even of that. And the thing is none of the papers picked up on it – I had to dig that out of the Washington Post. You listeners are pretty lucky I do such a lot of research for you.

In International Politics

George Bush has announced that he believes a peace treaty in the Middle East will be signed before he leaves office. He has such a good track record on predictions that no doubt Ladbrokes are no longer taking bets. I mean remember when he said we’d find WMD in Iraq, when he said the US army would be welcomed as liberators and when he said one little pretzel can’t hurt me.

And finally

In an important development in the on-going ten year international inquest into the death of Princess Diana it was revealed today that she once receive a nasty note.

Porn Addicts

Article on the BBC about the rise in men who are addicted to internet pornography. Not very surprising. Of course the article is all about how the men who have the addictions suffer. Not about how the women in their lives - both relationship-wise and their colleagues, friends and family members are affected. If you want to see what our easy-porn culture is doing to women take a look at the footage from Australia of women being chased by angry mobs of men shouting "get your tits out for the lads".

News Podcast 10th Jan

Here's todays podcast, extra material by David Mulholland.

Click here to get your own player.

Text for you poor souls without earphones or speakers:

Starting with the biggest news of the day

Amy Winehouse has had her hair cut. More on that tomorrow, and every day for the next six weeks.

A very bad day for UK politics today.

Firstly the news that Schools secretary Ed Balls made something of a gaffe in the Commons when asked to list the colours of the rainbow. He apparently responded red, yellow, pink and green, purple and orange and blue when the correct answer is Why the fuck are we discussing this in the house of commons? Shouldn’t we be talking about important stuff like how to maintain the health service and how to bring peace to the middle east?

Secondly today is the day the government is going to quietly push through the formal approval for a huge slew of new nuclear power stations. It’s strange this because we’re essentially being told it’s our fault for wanting carbon emissions reduced. It’s like when you tell your mum you don’t like cabbage, hoping you’ll get extra pudding instead, but she replaces your cabbage with sprouts. We wanted fields of majestic windmills preferably all round Noel Edmonds house. Slight diversion but at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there’s an area with a “range of opinions” on wind power and lots of celebs saying how much the planet will benefit from harnessing natural energy from the wind and in the middle is a quote from Noel Edmonds saying he thinks windmills are ugly. Ah the irony, cos I think Noel Edmonds is ugly. But I digress. The new power stations will all be built, most likely by EDF energy, a company whose media relations officer, I discovered in Private Eye this week – is Gordon Brown’s brother. Conflict of interest? What? Where? Dunno what you’re talking about.

Food

Yesterday the daily mail had a lengthy opinion piece poo-pooing campaigners against brutal battery chicken farms. Today their front page is horrified at the state of a horse farm in Buckinghamshire. The main difference between the two is that the chickens are sold in UK supermarkets while the horses are exported to be eaten by dirty French people.

Health

The front page of today’s Independent says that British dental care is the most expensive in Europe. They say the average filling in Hungary or Poland costs only £5 including x-ray, drugs and overheads while in the UK it costs £117 including x-ray, drugs and the dentist’s travel over from Hungary or Poland.

Another report in the Independent says a cloned pig whose genes were altered to make it glow green in the dark has passed on the trait to it’s young. They say the development could lead to the breeding of pigs for human transplant organs. I’m not sure that if I needed a transplant I’d want a luminous green one. Wouldn’t it keep you awake at night. Maybe it’s a solution to reducing energy usage, giving people a natural flashlight in one finger. Most frightening would be if you had an accident and needed a face transplant and woke up with a luminous pig-face. If you were the sort of person who was at risk of losing their face (I know I can never find my passport and my oyster card, usually got the face to hand though) you could keep a couple of pigs with your face pre-grown on in the garden – would sure be a talking point at dinner parties.

Education

The way in which secondary schools are measured is changing. Until last year they measured the percentage of students getting five or more Cs at GCSE. However now they have been instructed that the five GCSEs must include English, maths and science. This is to prevent the existing problem of schools boosting their performance by offering GCSEs in finger painting, making macaroni necklaces and eating play-doh.

The requirement for a science GCSE has caught out some faith schools including St Augustine’s Catholic School in Trowbridge who have seen their pass rate drop from 84% to 3%. Apparently the drawing a flow diagram of how Richard Dawkins should be burnt at the stake isn’t enough for the Cambridge Exam Board any more.

Foreign Affairs

Civil servant Derek Pasquill has been cleared of leaking damaging government documents. The information he was accused of letting slip was that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in the UK. Luckily “stating the bloody obvious” isn’t illegal in the UK. I’m amazed it needs saying but just in case anyone doesn’t get it: Bombing the crap out of people doesn’t make them like you.

Arts

Jane Austin has been given a makeover for the cover of a book about her life. Apparently the only confirmed existing portrait of her just doesn’t give enough sizzle to shift copies. Hopefully when the impact on sales becomes apparent they’ll insist that for sleeve photos and press conferences Martin Amis wears a burqa.

Newsflash: Blood Not Thicker Than Water!

I nearly did something amazing yesterday*. I went to give blood. Anyway it was rather exciting - I'd filled in all the forms, had my iron test (which I only just passed, must eat more green veg and liver I think) and hopped up onto the couch. Then the nurse put the needle in my arm - I am not at all squeamish so we were chatting away at this stage - and she turned round to get some other piece of equipment. While she wasn't looking the needle flew out onto the floor and my blood started spurting across the room. I've never seen blood really spurting before - quite a sight - a neat jet that went a good metre across the hall onto the floor, the bed, the nurse's cardigan and my hand and wrist too. Really Tarantino-esque!

The nurse told me in 21 years in the blood service she's never seen that happen before. As a result she and everyone else there spent about an hour apologising, checking I was ok and feeding me tea and ginger biscuits, which felt like a bit of a cheat considering everyone else there had given a pint of blood and I'd only given about 50ml onto the floor!

Don't be put off giving blood though -it's not painful and you're very well looked after. And in the once-in-21-year chance it does go a teeny bit wrong you'll look really tough and get tons of sympathy.**

* "Do something amazing today" is the slogan used to encourage people to give blood.
** That's really my bandaged arm pictured.

Visit the House of Commons!

I've been asked to promote a meeting next week being organised by Abortion Rights for pro-choicers in London. I'll be going myself if I'm not working - here are the details:

Public meeting January 16th 2008

Defend the Abortion Act - Campaigning for a Woman's Right to Decide

7pm for a 7.30pm start, Committee room 10, House of Commons, nearest tube Westminster

All pro-choice supporters welcome!

This public meeting will kick off the pro-choice campaigning to defeat anti-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently in parliament and to support any opportunities to advance women’s abortion rights.

The meeting will hear a range of short contributions from invited speakers followed by time for contributions thoughts and ideas from the floor.

Speakers include:Baroness Joyce Gould; Baroness Jenny Tonge; Emily Thornberry MP; Katy Clark MP; Diane Abbott MP; Frances O'Grady, Deputy General Secretary TUC; Anni Marjoram, adviser to the Mayor of London; Alex Kemp, NUS Disabled Students' Campaign; Katherine Rake, Director Fawcett Society; Wendy Savage, Doctors for A Woman's Right to Choose on Abortion; Anne Quesney, Director Abortion Rights

Anti-abortionists opposed to women’s right to choose on abortion would like to use the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently speeding through the House of Lords, to restrict the Abortion Act. Already, Baroness Masham has tabled an amendment to restrict abortion. Other parliamentarians may try to lower the legal abortion time limit from 24 to 20 or even 13 weeks. Any such restrictions would be devastating for women and must be defeated. Pro-choice MPs are also expected to table amendments to improve the law. These should be fully supported.

Please allow plenty of time to clear security on entering the Palace of Westminster and tell the police outside Parliament that you are attending a meeting sponsored by Emily Thornberry MP
Have your say and get involved – all pro-choice supporters welcome!

The room is wheelchair accessible and has a hearing loop system.
Please let us know of any additional access requirements.

Doing It Monkey-Style

A report on Yahoo says male monkeys "pay" for sex by grooming females (physically, not on the Internet, that is). It's being offered as evidence that prostitution has evolutionary roots. Now theres two little issues I have with this.

1. It's natural to shit in a ditch. Genocide is "natural" - chimps do it. Killing and eating your young is "natural" - polar bears in German zoos do it. Natural as defined by "an animal does it" or even "our primitive ancestors probably did it" has nothing to do with "it's a good idea" or "we should keep doing it". Which is what seems to be the author (of the piece and possibly the report)'s rather smug message.

2. How exactly is grooming parallel behaviour to paying? I could understand the implication if the male chimps gave the females food in exchange for sex. But surely grooming is more like petting. And no-one considers themselves a prostitute because they don't like to have sex without a bit of foreplay. Actually if you look at social evolution it is widely accepted that as ape social groups grew in size, chatting replaced grooming as the glue of social cohesion. So the grooming behaviour would be akin to chatting a woman up. Again talking to your sexual partners does not make you a prostitute.

The report goes on to "back up" the initial theory by pointing out that females require less grooming when there are other females around. But then maybe they just don't like all their mates watching them being chatted up. Or maybe they want to get it over with and go hang out with their female friends.

Drawing conclusions that fit your own sexist preconceptions is a real waste of time in an area of science that could really use a lot more attention.