ThunderDragon Blog

Nerd rap artists? Apparently they exist…

“At school they had spots, bad hair and loved computers. They were always picked last for football and never picked at all by the girls.
But now, driven by the internet, American geeks are no longer embarrassed by their obsessions with games such as Dungeons & Dragons or their marginal music tastes.
Self-styled nerds have now established their own, vibrant subculture, which revels in the merits of being “uncool”, complete with geeky pop stars, conventions and television shows.
So-called “nerdcore” rap artists have abandoned the traditional hip-hop subject matter of guns and bling, to sing instead about Star Wars and how they could never get the girls at school.” (Sunday Telegraph)

Well, why not? Hilarious, though. And a great excuse to post this video:

Warning: Some bad language

You’re a drug addict? Here, have an iPod on the government!

“DRUG addicts are to be offered gift vouchers and prizes on the National Health Service under plans by the government’s medicine watchdog to encourage them to stay clean.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) will recommend the system of inducements, which could enable clinics to offer televisions and iPods as prizes, to tackle the burgeoning drugs problem…” (Sunday Times)

Why should drug addicts get any financial incentives to stop? If they don’t want to stop for other reasons, this will only keep them off the drugs for as long as the money keeps on coming in. This is totally wrong.

Supporters claim that the money spent of giving addicts iPods will be “recouped” through them making fewer demands of the NHS. Despite the fact that the money won’t be “recouped” but just not spent on it, they may be right. But that doesn’t support the idea that financial incentives will make addicts quit. Beyond the problems of cost, it is morally a bad thing to do. It is effectively rewarding people because they have broken the law and have now stopped. It’s like giving a burglar money because he hasn’t robbed your house this week - utterly absurd.

Those who don’t take drugs and get addicted are effectively being screwed over by this because they haven’t broken the law/got addicted beforehand. If these addicts want to get “clean” then they don’t need financial incentives to do so. if they can only stop tasking drugs in return for iPods and the like, as soon as they stop getting given them, or have what they want, then they will just revert to their old state, costing the NHS double. If addicts want to quit, they don’t need to be given money to do so. If they don’t want to quit, all the money in the world won’t make a difference.

Your party is down in the polls for the first time in 18 months, so what do you do? Call for a no confidence vote, of course - if you’re disloyal spineless bastard.

“David Cameron faces calls to resign from a handful of Conservative MPs who have lodged formal requests for a vote of no confidence in his leadership…
At least two MPs, and possibly as many as half a dozen, have written to Sir Michael Spicer, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, to call for a vote of no confidence…
A no confidence motion would be triggered if 29 MPs - 15 per cent of the parliamentary party - write to call for a vote. While there is no suggestion that anything like that number has done so, even a small number risks triggering similar demands from malcontent MPs.” (Sunday Telegraph)

Why and how can this “handful” of Tory MPs justify their call? Yes the Conservative Party is down in the polls and the recent by-elections in Ealing and Sedgefield were hardly great, when the best thing that could be said about it is that the Lib Dems don’t have a ready excuse to dump Ming Campbell.

But that is not grounds for a call for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron. We have changed leaders far too much over the last decade, and especially recently. The polls right now may not be great news, but they were not so long ago - and probably will be again in a few months time. To call for a vote of no confidence on that basis, and claims that the ‘Cameron Project’ has nothing at the heart of it is sickening. Only one of the task groups have reported, IDS’ report on the Broken Society, and two more are to report their findings this week - the National and International Security group and the International Development review.

To even consider calls for a no confidence vote right now is foolish and despicable. Especially when that “handful” of MPs have not put their own necks on the line, protected by confidentiality. If this small group of MPs have something to say, let them come out and say it to the camera. Put your own neck on the line or shut the hell up. The MPs who have written to the 1922 Committee to make this call now are disloyal spineless bastards. All they are doing is giving ammo to the other parties, and certainly not helping their own. Do they want to win the next general election?!

Sources: Sunday Telegraph, BBC

Today was the day that the seventh, and final, Harry Potter book was published. One thing I did not do was queue to get the book - I went on my way back from the pub last night instead. There has been a lot of hype over almost all of the seven books, so is it possible for them to live up to it? Not really.

Some claim that the Harry Potter books are “children’s books” and look down their noses at any adult who reads it. But they’re wrong. Whilst it would be wrong to claim that they were great literature, they are good, readable, interesting, and engaging reads. They are certainly great stories, and were they not then they would not have generated the hype that they have.

Looking down on them, and their readers, shows a remarkable lack of thought. Reading is a good thing for people of all ages - it stretches and engages the mind, exercises the imagination, and is certainly a far superior leisure activity than watching the TV. A good book can be read anywhere, at any time, and requires nothing but you to work.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was a book extremely well hyped beforehand. The publishing date has been known for months, as has the cover designs. Shops, and especially supermarkets, have been competing for who can sell it cheapest. And we have known for a long time that various major characters would die - all adding to the hype. And does it match the hype? Yes, and no.

It was, as all the HP books have been, an engaging and entertaining read. But whilst some sections were stretched out, others seemed uncomfortably cramped in the space they were given. Several sections needed expanding to explain the characters reasoning’s and why such and such a thing was relevant. However, that is a peril of fantasy writing - when you introduce a new concept and background history to your readers, you have to explain it. What are the “Deathly Hallows”, for example? One of J. K. Rowling’s failing as an author in my mind is to not explain this sort of thing all that well considering it’s relevance to the story plot - a failing that is visible in all seven books, but not such a huge one, really.

I liked Book 7. I felt that there were bits that needed more explanation and description, but as the book is already 600 pages long, to an extent it is understandable. In the same vein, I would have liked to see more narrative that wasn’t focused directly on Harry, but more on the others around him. However, these are all relatively minor quibbles. Deathly Hallows is a good read and a nice end to the series, finished as it was in a way that means that Rowling can thus refuse to write any more Harry Potter books. And as much as I like them, that’s a good thing.

The 24-hour drinking law is quite possibly the best piece of legislation introduced by Labour in the past decade. The fact that it is pretty much alone as good pieces of legislation is by-the-by in this instance.

There are claims that these laws have led to a trebling of drink-related treatment at A&E and that it, apparently, has led to a “surge” in early-morning violence.

In A&E attendance at St Thomas’ Hospital in Central London, in March 2005 there were 79 “drink-related” injuries (2.9% of the injuries), and a year later there were 250 (8%). First of all, that was more than a year ago and the article gives no comparable level for March 2007. Also, they were “defined as having an alcohol-related problem if they had drunk before going to hospital, or if they were intoxicated when examined or in their final diagnosis.” So their actual reason for going to A&E could have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they had been drinking, but because they had it was included in this report as “alcohol-related”… Somehow I think that invalidates this report.

Whilst early-morning violence may have “surged” - “criminal damage and harassment between 3am and 6am rose sharply in the 12 months after the reforms came in” - the actual numbers have dropped, as “averages across the whole day were slightly down.” So, in fact, 24-hour drinking has caused fewer alcohol-fuelled crimes. A 22% jump between 3am and 6am, yes, but fewer overall. That this sort of alcohol-fuelled activity would occur at later times was obvious. As pubs and clubs stayed open for longer, then alcohol-related incidents would also obviously shift to a later time. That’s like having a 11-7 working day for lots of people and then being surprised that there was a far greater level of traffic at 7pm!

Also, never mind the hype, 24-hour drinking is still an urban legend. No licensed premises has that sort of licence, and I would be quite surprised if many ever did, and even if they had it, used it all that often. The 24-hour availability of alcohol is pretty much limited to 24-hour supermarkets.

Sources: The Times, The Telegraph

They’re not good news.

Ealing Southall:

Virendra Sharma (Lab) 15,188 (41.48%, -7.28%)
Nigel Bakhai (LD) 10,118 (27.63%, +3.19%)
Tony Lit (C) 8,230 (22.48%, +0.91%)

Sedgefield:

Phil Wilson (Lab) 12,528 (44.77%, -14.11%)
Greg Stone (LD) 5,572 (19.91%, +8.02%)
Graham Robb (C) 4,082 (14.59%, +0.19%)

It seems that the gamble on Tony Lit, and the repeated visits of David Cameron to Ealing did not work. It was pretty much an abysmal failure. At this stage in a Parliament, the Conservatives should be doing far far better in by-elections than a less than 1% increase in vote. As Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome says:

“Today the only silver lining of the Ealing result is that LibDem MPs have not got a ready excuse to oust Menzies Campbell.”

When that is the best thing that can be said about the results, it’s not good at all.

The revelations are coming thick and fast today on cabinet ministers and their “youthful” drug use. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary started this off by admitting that, when asked whether or not she had ever smoked cannabis, saying:

“I have. I did when I was at university. I think it was wrong that I smoked it when I did. I have not done for 25 years.”

This has now been followed by revelations from Alistair Darling that he had smoked cannabis “occasionally in my youth”, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andy Burnham, who had smoked it “once or twice at university”, Hazel Blears who tried cannabis “once or twice when very young,” and, surprisingly, Ruth Kelly as well.

And my comment, as I said when David Cameron was accused of smoking cannabis, is: So what? Who cares? So you smoked cannabis when you were at university? Many people do. Politicians can have pasts too! It may have mattered in the past, but not any more.

It is all due to the government wanting to reclassify cannabis back to a Class B drug, and being able to point the finger at David Cameron for not having answered whether or not he has smoked cannabis in his past. This sort of mass “coming out” will protect them all from any negative repercussions from these “revelations”, but also makes them wide open to the sort of joke I have used as the title of this post. By doing this, they don’t necessarily win or lose anything, except for maybe a bit of disgruntlement from some especially anti-drug campaigners.

It is amusing that all the politicians who admit having tried cannabis also all say that they didn’t enjoy it, or that it didn’t do anything for them. What a load of bollocks they’re talking! People wouldn’t do it if it had no effect, and be refusing to admit that they liked it even the tiniest bit gains them no points back from the anti-drugs squad or wins them any from those who have or do smoke cannabis.

Reclassifying cannabis back up to Class B isn’t going to work very well, and their justifications for it on the grounds of fears that its use is linked to psychotic illness, depression and suicide among young people are pretty slim. I’ve pretty much come round to thinking that cannabis should be legal, since it barely seems to have any worse effects than drinking alcohol or cigarette smoking, and being legal would cut down the extent to which it is a “gateway drug”.