Some of my favourite sketches from the US...   And more....   And more...   And yet more...   And yet more...   And yet more...   And more again...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more again...   And a bit more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And more...   And a little bit more...   And just one last one...  

£6bn - Cost of the Eurofighter deal that Saudi Arabia allegedly threatened to withdraw from in 2006 if a corruption probe in the UK continued.

5,000 direct, 50,000 indirect - Estimated total jobs that the Eurofighter deal will bring to the UK.

£4.5bn - Estimated UK expenditure on the Iraq War.

60,000 - Estimated total number of civilian casulaties as a result of the UK/US Invasion of Iraq in order to bring Saddam Hussein et al to justice for crimes against humanity.

The "Al Yamamah" deal involving BAE has been a 20-year trade of massive military arms stocks to Saudia Arabia for 600,000 barrels of oil per day to the UK. The National Audit Office's report into alleged bribery has never been released - the only NAO report to be held back from the public domain. On 14th December 2006, the investigation was stopped, apparently after the Saudis threatened to take the lucrative deal to the French or the Americans. The UK Attorney General cited the need to "balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest". Tony Blair effectively said that the investigation could not be continued because it threatened UK-Saudi relations which are "vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."

Saudia Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the region. There is no written penal code, and judges have full powers to impose sentences of flogging, amputation and decapitation for "crimes" such as drinking, homosexuality and non-Islamic religious worship.

After an amusing conversation with Kirma/Emsty (a plurality of incredibly complexity), I have come to the conlcusion that my English tutor was right - text is inherently instable! It's amazing how complicated life becomes when speaker and voice is confused in conversation.

I may write more, but at the moment I am too inebriated with madness to figure this anomaly out...

    Anyone who has seen my MSN nickname in the last few weeks might just have gathered that my computer has been less than good...

    Actually, it's been very very bad, and has not at all behaved itself. My hard drive (after going for rugby scrum training courtesy of the people who shipped it out to Northern Ireland) had not been at its best, and gave up the ghost last week. So I've spent the weekend trying to get back my stuff, my music and my documents, have had to order a new copy of Office (ouch), and am now trying to work out exactly how I'll get two essays done without any programs that can write documents... (Jim: Judging by the Northern Ireland Post Office's previous record, I'd say that you'll have been able to finish engraving your essay into granite before it arrives).

    Anyway, it wasn't my intention to moan on about my woes. In fact, let's be frank (Frank: No let's not), it strikes me as being wholly disproportionate and self-absorbed to seriously moan about the loss of a load of strings of 0s and 1s. When I switch on the news or listen to the radio, a cacophonous wave of human suffering becomes apparent, amidst which my computer troubles are hardly a colossus of woe. I had been worrying about it for almost a week (I had prior warning and was hoping to be able to do a direct copy of my hard drive), yet curiously, when I finally lost the stuff, I wasn't that cut up. On the contrary, I felt irritated not at what I'd lost but the grossly stupid amounts of time that I'd lavished on it. I guess it was a great thing to happen in one way, because it made me realise how much everything ended up revolving around my computer.

    I voluntarily left it switched off for a week whilst waiting for parts to arrive (in a now-pointless attempt to prevent it from going before I could do a full-backup), and within less than 24 hours I was thinking; "Oh, I'll just go and look up that website, or I'll just run off a copy of these notes - hang on, I can't". It made me realise how much computers are part of modern life (Jim: And you're even worse than 'modern life') and how little I do without involving technology at some level. It's made even scarier because I can easily remember a time before the internet, and before I had a computer. I think I played outside or something like that...

    I'm not in any sense trying to suggest a return to pre-internet, or the burning of PCs, but it is sometimes interesting to stop and look around you to see what's different. I can't help but feel that the main effect of computers, 24-7 news and constantly updated information has been to screw with my perspectives and sense of proportionality. It's not that they're inherently bad in themselves, but I have got the impression from my recent experiences that I at least, have managed to forget that there are things that rapid information cannot convey. Even if PCs one day include full support for five-senses simulation, there will still be a credible argument for ditching the hardware every once in a while and walking the world for yourself (albeit at a much slower pace).

    Do I sound middle aged now?

    That's worrying...

This made me laugh so much when I read it!

Proof that Hamsters are more than capable of being Hard-Nuts...

Enjoy...

At last, the oppressive weight of exams are over. Well, in all honesty, that's a bit melodramatic: due to there being no lecturers (they've all been abducted by radioactive hanging baskets/union leaders), the questions on my final paper today were... er... the same as the ones in the module handbook that we did in our seminars. So, it was not so much a case of having to write and essay as it was summon up the seminars to mind. Fortunately Jim had insisted on cleaning out the files last night, so as a result they were scattered all over the place, and throughout the evening I subconsciously absorbed all the information in them whilst avoiding the odd third world country that Jim had removed from behind the desk. This was achieved largely through taking caffeine intravenously and standing on my head, only up-side down, because the other way round is considerably harder.

It's been ages since I did an update on my life (having been bogged down with ideas and polemics that induce me to take myself seriously), and there's so much to recount that it seems difficult to begin. So, rather than try to begin at the beginning, I've started half way into the blog. Should work.

My brother's school had a field trip to IKEA!! Apparently they'd been doing Swedish Studies after a mix up with the maths papers (apologies to whoever got the numeracy hour crap, but at least you won't have to buy fuel for the generator for a month), and so they got to go and see the cultural offerings of the country that produced dynamite, pacemakers, ball bearings, safety matches, and Coca-Cola bottles (the glass ones). Did you know that Sweden also invented the cow? I didn't until I made it up. Anyway, it just so happened that the trip to IKEA coincided with my flight back to the polar wastes of South Belfast (waaay back at Easter), and since the various members of my family seem to regard pilgrimages to the Holdy-Poldy Sofa range as being something of a spiritual experience, off I went.

I have to admit, IKEA scared me in new ways. It wasn't the dubiously named items (such as 'Lyklig', 'Slatthult' and 'Bubbla') made from lurid plastic, or even the hallucinogenic scent of manufactured wood polish, but the meatballs. IKEA's restaurant actually provided flatpack meals. Ok, well they didn't, but it sounds better if I say they did, so bear with me. Not only did the meatballs come in 44 separate parts (each requiring the IKEA-Key, which always manages to mystically transport itself under the cupboard just before the final screw can be put on, leading you to just ignore it and subsequently get buried by books six weeks down the line when your bookshelves collapse, or in this case, er... the meatballs explode), but they came with a free Swedish person. Mine is called Sven, and the girl ones are all called Ingrid. However, the moral of this somewhat dubious story lies in the fact that there was a no-limit refill of coke, which cost only 10p!!! Let me just repeat that, relishing the words as they flow from my fingertips:


Ten perfect round little copper squashed cylinders, the little queen's face grinning away like a goblin that's just realised she's standing on a cliff above Gandalf with a massive rock tilting on the edge...
So, yeah: IKEA, I'm still with it. It turns out that IKEA have a line called: Holidays at IKEA. In my uninformed cynicism I think I remarked something about there most likely being half of the Caribbean secreted at the back of the warehouse, but, O! foolish youth that I was! A holiday at IKEA where you can drink your heart's content of life's elixir for as long as you want. I think I'll retire there. Of course, in order to retire I first have to do some work...

In other news: there isn't any other news. This is largely because I can't be bothered to make it all up again. So I'll just put in the stock quote and go play Oblivion until my eyeballs evaporate.

It appears that [INSERT TOPICAL ARSEHOLE/ARSEHOLETTE HERE] has been found [SLEEPING WITH A WALRUS/WEARING A GIBBON'S UNDERWEAR/RUNNING AN ILLEGAL PARROT SWAP-SHOP] whilst [HANGING FROM MARGARET THATCHER'S GOOD INTENTIONS/GROWING PAINT/INVADING CHINA].

"Why should we respect the human rights of criminals? If they commit a crime, then they forfeit their human rights." (Audience member on Question Time this week)

Because if you were one day committed of a crime you would want to be dealt with fairly and justly - and you would not want to be punished more than somebody who committed exactly the same crime. When you deport an immigrant who has committed a crime and done her/his time for it, you are adding an extra punishment. You deal with them with increased severity - in effect 'equality under the law' is no longer being applied.

If you deny Human Rights to criminals, you are applying a qualifier to those rights. It becomes the case that those who break the law are no longer given the same rights. Should a country pass a law that makes your behaviour illegal, you could, in theory, lose your human rights there. Those rights don't make you immune to receiving a penalty if you commit a crime, and those rights don't weaken the law: they guarantee a basic minimum of quality of life, safety and legal equality.

If we genuinely believe in a civilised society, we have to recognise that the first priority is to reform the criminal, not punishment. By effectively punishing immigrants to a degree that is greater than that of 'native' citizens, we do not reform them in the slightest: prison cannot be a reforming process under the circumstances where the prisoner knows they will be further punished upon leaving. We send them back to their countries, or wherever, as unreformed criminals. When it boils down to it, the attitude of so much of criminal immigration law is 'not here'. I'm going to suggest something that I know is controversial: if somebody commits a crime here, it is necessary to identify that part of the motivation in that crime comes from the situations that they are in - that they are in this country. If we believe that immigrant criminals are in effect the 'responsibility' of their nation states, then all we are doing is ignoring the factors involved in criminality. Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime...

We believe it us uncivilised and immoral to discriminate on the basis of gender, hair colour, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other 'accident of birth': why then do we discriminate on the basis of one of the biggest accidents of birth: location? Why is it that people genuinely seem to believe that the rights of an individual diminish on the basis of where they are physically located? Nationality is a political claim - not a claim about the nature of man: for the purposes of Human Rights, which apply to all human beings, nationality cannot be a criteria in their application.

Feet aching woodenly, he loped towards the fireplace – the ashes of the night’s fire still grumbling in the hearth. A murk of headaches clouded around him as he capitulated to the dull recriminations of his legs, slumping into the crude chair. For the briefest moment, he was still. Then, as if waking, he brushed aside his stillness with a sigh. The yellow smell of dripping liquor fermented in the greasy air around, a damp scent falling from the rain-bombarded roof above. He shook his head, dark hair suddenly flailing, beaded drops gyrating through the haze of steam that now began to rise around. The chair, still new and yet eroded by the weight of sweaty peddlers, resented his presence, threatening every movement with splintered teeth of wood. Squirming slightly, and then stilling against the anger of the chair, he turned to face the fireplace, hands like sympathetic friends unbuckling his cloak while his sight fell on the smoking embers. There he stayed for some time, poised on his chair as if waiting for the right moment to launch forward into oblivion.

Around him, men roundly shuffled. Their motion was almost comical to the weary traveller, as they squeezed and slid their bulk around the crowded mob of furniture. Somewhere behind, a cluttering fall of plates caused the remnants of a husk of meat to slither along the flagstones, hastily claimed by the clutching paws of two rats. A cry went up from the innkeeper, a man who wore his bulk as others would a crown, and a sullen child of indeterminate gender stooped, amidst jeers, to smear the mess with a saturated rag. The rats, swollen with the opulent waste of the inn, were brazen in ignoring the child, and stayed for some moments more, rapidly squabbling over their find until the heavy boot of a colossus scattered them into the corners of gloom.

Wisps of smoke climbed into the air above the blackened hearth, the dripping leak having quelled the dying glow. Slowly, the traveller rocked into an upright position, his movements jerky and heavy-limbed. He sidled between the close-set tables, walking towards the thick-paned window that leered outwards like a paunch on the building: a boxed view of the mud-spattered track beyond. Once more, he sat, lifting one arching leg to accompany him in the window frame. Leaning against the brick-like glass, its grave-cold texture beckoning his cheek, he slumped back towards the wall and peered, vision half-slanted by the finger-grimed pane, onto the road outside. A passing shade, packaged in dark cloth, barged through the whorls of air and rain outside, the grimy light of the inn holding no promise as mud erupted around in infinite tiny crowns of dubious water. The traveller’s burnt-sienna eyes followed the motion of the determined shade outside, until its form became a smudge in the hissing curtain of grey vapour. Then they lapsed back into a stare at the entropy of the falling rain.

You know that you've spent too long writing essays when buying cleaning products makes for a 'welcome change'.

_______________________________________________________________________

YOU HAVE WASTED THIS MUCH TIME VIEWING MY SPACE:

    EDIT: I have included at the bottom of this blog some statistics from the US State Department on the total International Terrorist Attacks by Region in both the periods of 1995-2000 and 1998-2003, as well as an overall breakdown of specifically anti-American attacks in 2003. I've specifically used 2003 (although feel free to go and look up other years - the trends are much the same), because it represents a post-9/11 world, but is not disorted by insurgency in Iraq. In other words, the state of affairs before military intervention had been completed in the Middle East (Iraq). You'll notice that the vast majority of world events do not occur in the Middle East, and that even amongst specifically anti-American terrorist attacks, only a small proportion come from the countries that American foreign policy focuses on. I would suggest that this demonstrates a disproportionate pursual of Middle Eastern terrorism over and above anti-American terrorism in other regions (specifically Latin America). I realise that my view may not be shared by many people, but I am trying my best to demonstrate that my opinions are based as much in the available facts as I can achieve, and not merely disillusioned rantings with little concrete foundation.

    Just to provide a very modern example, close to home, of a lack of consistency on foreign policy, I'll briefly outline Belarus. A country sitting between Poland and Russia, and former part of the USSR, Belarus is the last 'outpost of tyranny in Europe' according to the UN. Compared to Iran, the control of media and totally pervasive level of censorship is vastly worse. There is very little doubt that Belarus is a dictatorship. The 'President', who lacks any credible mandate at all, insists that popular revolutions, such as occurred in Ukraine two years ago, will be prevented "no matter what it costs".

    One would expect, given it's proximity to the European Union, that there would be an official policy aiming to bring about democracy and freedom. This is, after all, a country that is further from the Western ideal than Iran is on a political, journalistic and economic perspective. However, it appears we do not meddle in the domestic affairs of a 'sovereign state', and whilst the situation is condemned, it does not appear to be our responsibility to do anything about it (by 'us', I mean the UK - I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the US should necessarily be involved, but then I don't see any reason why the US should concern itself with Iran either...). It is true to say that Belarus is very much an ally of Russia (at least in the mind of President Lukashenko) rather than Europe, so it would be fair to conclude that our reluctance to get involved is more a reluctance to enter into Putin's backyard. We certainly do little in any official capacity to improve the situation in other ex-USSR countries. Perhaps this is now the result of uneasiness over Putin's handling of Chechnya - the Chechnyan rebels having been explicitly referred to in relation to the 'War on Terror' - but even so, it seems remarkably indulgent of us to grant Belarus sovereignty to suppress free speech and not extend the same privilege to other regimes.

    Iran of course, has no hulking neighbour like Russia who could protect them from US sabre-rattling. It's neighbours are, on the whole, poor and rife with anti-Western sentiment that manifests itself in a blatant manner. Even without a Western press focus on the Middle East, it is very hard to ignore the burning of an embassy or the killing of Western nationals. In Belarus, there seems to be little way of telling if the people are pro or anti Western, given that they have no free voice, although if nearby countries are anything to go by, I'd imagine there is a slight majority of pro-Western sentiment (the Ukraine being split about 54/46%). Any official anti-Western sentiment that comes from Belarus is quiet, and much easier to ignore. This is not a President who denies the Holocaust and publically delights in the anticipation of the end of Israel.

    I'm not defending either set of Presidents - as I've said before I deplore many of the views held by Ahmadinejad - but the lesson to dictators that can be learnt by looking at Belarus is that if you keep quiet, you can get up to any mischief you like. Heck, if you label those who would bring your tyranny to an end 'terrorists', you might even get aid from the White House, or at least a nod from Bush that you're doing your part. Last bit of advice for a dictator in the 21st Century? Get pally with a big ex-Soviet monster state, like Russia or China, or get hold of nuclear weapons without anyone noticing - Russia, China and the US are all worth a shot. Follow this advice, and you'll go from most reviled rogue state to sovereign nation, and who knows? Maybe you'll end up having dinner at the White House - like the CIA-trained terrorists from Ecquador who killed 150 people and were dining with George Bush Senior on the day of 9/11.

Apologies if this bores you, in which case exercise your free will and don't read it; and apologies to those who are offended by, or disagree with any of the content here. Exercise your right to free speech and say so.

    Apparently the USA, in its ever reliable benevolence, is trying to 'promote democracy in Iran'. Speaking in the UN this week, Condi Rice said: 'they [the Iranians] are a wonderful people, they have a great culture and they deserve to govern themselves'. Noble sentiments. The Bush Administration is evidently using a 1960s copy of the World Encyclopedia, as strangely, this 'great country' has been suffering from bizarre constitutional symptoms, including elections with multiple parties (of differing views) and a democratically elected president. Of course, much like in Palestine, the government that was elected is extremely anti-US and anti-Israel.
    I don't like the sexist, anti-homosexual policies of the current Iranian government, I utterly disagree with their stance on Israel and their President's denial of the Holocaust, but then I don't like the sexist, anti-homosexual policies of the Republicans, I fully disgree with their stance on so-called Terrorist States and their President's beliefs that God encouraged a war. Unfortunately, a tangible majority of people in Iran and America don't agree with me.

    I cannot fathom how any country can claim to be fighting for democracy and then wilfully ignore the choice made by a country in free elections.

    This bears an uncanny resemblance to the USSR's policy towards elections in Eastern Europe, where any result was theoretically possible, but if it was anything but the group that agreed with the Kremlin, it wasn't recognised. A more modern example of this would be China's refusal to recognise Taiwanese sovereignty.

    Incidentally, the whole issue with Iran (in recent terms) has been kicking around since 2002, when it was declared part of the 'axis of evil' by the Bush regime. Sadly, I fear this act must go down as the biggest-shooting-in-the-foot incident of post 9/11 - as on the day of that atrocity, the Iranian people in Tehran came out with a lantern march in solidarity with those who had lost their lives in America [see pictures below]. Four years on, having been kicked in the teeth and having been told their country is 'evil', their decision to elect a radical party is perhaps understandable.
    Putting it into another context, the response on 9/11 in Pakistan on the street was bonfires and celebrations that the US had been attacked, even back then in 2001. Yet within months, whereas Iran was on America's blacklist, Pakistan was enjoying cordial relations with the states, which have culminated in Bush's recent visit there to celebrate the 'great links' between the two countries. This is in spite of the fact that Pakistan is a known harbourer of terrorists (although, in fairness not at a governmental level - but then Iran does not harbour terrorists at a governmental level either), and indeed, is the location for extremist training schools that have been conclusively linked with suicide bombers, not to mention that it became a nuclear power against UN conventions.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rail against Pakistan - I'd rather see the US developing the kind of relationship it's trying to foster in Pakistan at the moment, just world-wide.

    It seems to be that US foreign policy is neither honourable, consistent, or morally justifiable except from an ego-centric American (domestic) perspective.

    Returning to Iran, I wondered perhaps if "Sister" Condi's remarks referred to the unelected Ayatollah Khamenei being the supreme head of state. Ironically, the latest hard-line (but democratically elected) President is actually the first non-cleric President of Iran, and is not subject to the commands of clerical superiors. So here we see a separate head of state and head of government - in other words a constitutional theocracy (perhaps arguably in a post-embryonic stage).
    Some might point out that President Ahmadinejad's campaign for election ran on a conservative/fundamentalist Islamic manifesto, and that he applies his personal religious observances to the direction of government. I wouldn't disagree, but would refer such people to Bush's similar attempt to direct America in an Evangelical Christian direction, even to the point of declaring war believing he had the full blessing (perhaps even on instruction) of God.

    I'd like to draw attention to another country now, where the head of state is also the leader of a religion, immune from prosecution and, crucially, is unelected. The 'regime' in question is known for handing out administrative regions to family members, maintains disproportional ownership of land, and it has recently been demonstrated that senior members have been attempting to exercise undue political influence over matters of state. Not only does this particular state suffer from a chronic lack of democracy in terms of the highest position of state, but its current government is ruling on the basis of an extremely dubious electoral system. This system is so stacked in favour of the ruling party that it can afford to gain only 39% of the popular vote (in other words 3 in every 5 people did not vote for them) and still end up in control. This state has consistently been aggressive on the interntional stage, destabilising the Middle East, and has acted against International Law and in defiance of the UN. Furthermore, the state has the same record for Human Rights (on the UN's 5-point classification system) as such notable countries as Yemen, El Salvador, the UAE and Thailand. To top it all, the country is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world, and made more money selling weapons and torture devices (I'm not kidding: electrodes for genitals were my personal favourite) than it spends on its health care system.

    So is this country another of those 'Rogue States'? Alas, it is one of the leading members of the policemen of the world - it is, of course, our own dear "Great" Britain.

It's beginning to be painfully noticeable that there are more strikes round here than in Oxford, which is a pretty impressive achievement. Even the pseudo-commies up at the Oxford Post Office never managed a full two week stint followed by another threat within a week, and a threat from their comrades in arms over in Derry. On top of all that there's been bus strikes (although I don't use the bus) and now we've got a strike of university lecturers. Our head-honcho dude sent us all an email telling us how unfortunate it was that the AUT had decided to strike (apparently this was on the guidelines of a not-so-secret handout by the UCEA), but that it would be 'business as usual', er minus the whole learning thing. Personally, I'm against the strike, not because I think university lecturers shouldn't be paid better (they should), but because their argument is that now we have university fees that are higher than ever, they should be getting a bigger cut. I should also say I'm for the strike at the same time, as it will allow me to read through a load of stuff, not least the endless stream of economic geography books my room has managed to accumulate (or, if I'm honest, the new Steven Erikson book...).

Meanwhile, our campus management people have given us due warning that we'll be turfed out over Easter. Oh joy. So I'm having to be inventive about where I store various items (it being a little difficult to fly the whole lot home as hand luggage...). Plus, I have no boxes for anything (they're all sitting comfortably in an attic somewhere in darkest Didcot), so I'm scrounging from shops. Theoretically I should at least get a refund, but not until several months (years?) after Easter.
It's at times like this that all I can do is say 'meh', switch on M.A.S.H., break out the Coke and start reading 'The Bonehunters'. Oh yeah, and erm... write an essay.

Just received news that some of Boo's comrades are gearing up for the 2008 Presidential Elections in the USA. Click here to see more...

I was perusing some interviews with Steven Erikson (if you haven't read his books, shame on you) when I found the following: (you can read the full interview here if you want)

1. Can you tell us about your writing?

Well, I'm a little riled about that at the moment. One of Canada's most successful writers, Margaret Atwood, was in town the other day for a literary festival of some sort. Earlier, she'd been on national radio promoting her most recent novel - a post-apocalyptic story somewhere between Hoban's Riddley Walker and Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz - a novel which she insisted was not Science Fiction but Speculative Fiction. Whereupon she defined Science Fiction as fiction set in 'invented' worlds having no relationship to our own. At the festival, she added a definition of Fantasy, as fiction where animals talk. Now, the first definition had me incensed, the second one leaves me speechless. The only thing I can conclude about this is that the pejorative taint attached to such genres as Science Fiction and Fantasy still exists. What's disappointing is when the authors themselves fall victim to the same insecurities about what constitutes serious, quality fiction. I'd better stop there!

The 'Post-Apocalyptic Novel' is 'The Handmaid's Tale', which I refuse to plug in any way, and consider to be an overrated, nasty piece of literature that aims at gravity but frankly comes across as being flimsy and indulgent. Obviously, if you haven't read it, don't take my word for it but form your own opinion; it's sold pretty well, so I'm guessing a fair few people did actually like it.*
My estimation of Steven Erikson (/Steven Lundin) has gone up immensely. Not that it wasn't high to begin with of course...

*I should add that my particular loathing of this book does not stem from its genre or its subject matter. Feminist literature seems too broad a term if this kind of contrived nonsense can be placed alongside some of Virginia Woolf's stuff. If anything, I am further annoyed by Atwood's 'tale' because it was the first piece of proper Feminist fiction that I ever read, and very nearly put me off the whole lot. All I can say is thank goodness for English teachers who actively encourage (you may read: force) pupils to read more widely than just the set text.

I was reading some stuff at SETI's homepage today - the non-profit organisation that attempts to discover evidence of extraterrestrial life - in particular an article about preparing a response to any possible contact that might occur. I wasn't so interested in the material because I believe that aliens have nothing better to do than travel six billion light years to pick up the first American hick they come across, but more from the human perspective: how do we see ourselves?

It's a worthy question: to try and explain who and what we are, how we live, and why we do what we do, feel what we feel and make what we make.

It struck me that the endeavour was an exceedingly complex one, full of intricate difficulties. Firstly, I'd be very surprised if the world would be able to come up with something it agreed on. Don't take this entirely the wrong way - whilst the endless bickering and warring of humanity is one of our very greatest weaknesses, so too is it one of our strengths. The diversity that exists on this planet is vast, and is the source of so many of our greatest achievements. I wonder whether this would translate well on the intergalactic stage? An alien world with the capability to cross the near-infinite stretch of space might well have had to sacrifice much in the way of dissenting voices in order to be able to undertake such an achievement. War and profit drive technology on this planet; so many of the advances have been developed either as a method of exterminating our neighbours, or exercising greater control over those same neighbours (even if the individuals involved were of altruistic intent). Would a far more technologically advanced planet have had to pass through even more wars and periods of inequality to be able to stretch their intergalactic legs? More importantly, will we?

I'm genuinely uncertain as to whether or not I believe in extraterrestrial life, let alone life that can traverse the universe. Personally, I'm of the opinion, given trends on this planet, that any civilisation aiming for such high levels of technology would have to either be on a planet where energy resources didn't harm the planet, or where advances were significantly fast so as to allow for artificial replacements. I don't believe it will be possible for our own planet to reach the Star Trek dream of world-spanning empire: I think we will have exhausted ourselves long before. At the moment, the uncertainty about other worlds lets us imagine there are havens and paradises for us somewhere in the void. In a way, it lets us off considering that our planet might be the only one of its kind, and that there is no second chance. We dream there are other races who have learnt from the mistakes we have not. What if there were no such people: what if the sum of the universe, by accident or design, is us? I wonder what the value of the universe becomes if that is the case.

"We spent our lives reaching for the stars, only to find when we got there that they were all long dead"

According to this article at the BBC, David Cameron has named his son 'Arthur Elwen Cameron'. Amongst other things the article refers to the name 'Elwen' having English origins, but also being from a book that Samantha Cameron read - the implication being very much that it also has origins in Tolkien Elvish. Unfortunately for little Arthur, 'Elwen' is a girl's name in Elvish (Quenyan or Sindarin) and in Welsh, and is non-existent in Old English.

Firstly though, I'll tackle the obvious angle that the name is of English origin. It is true that the name 'Elwin', or the later version 'Elwyn', is a masculine name meaning 'Elf [wise] friend', which is the interpretation the BBC offers. However, the spelling 'Elwen' does not appear to be an English name at all*. It might be argued that the spelling is just an alternative version, and thus the masculine gender remains the same, but this argument does not sit well with Old English. A change to 'e' would suggest a feminine gender, and whilst names are never entirely rigid, I can't help but personally feel that aesthetically 'Elwen' sounds more like a girl's name than a boy's name even by modern standards. Obvious examples of names such as 'Branwen' come to mind, and of course the point that 'Elwen' is used as a female name in Wales even today. I suspect that this Old English origin theory is something cooked up/mistakenly pointed to by the BBC to help explain an unusual name; they obviously chose to avoid making any embarrassing observations or else didn't know. However, there are several pointers in the article that the name (for the Camerons at least) had very different origins.

Apparently, 'Elwen' was read somewhere by Samantha Cameron. Personally I can't work out where, as it is not in the Lord of the Rings, and features nowhere in any of my encyclopedias of Tolkien's works, despite the BBC's assertion that it comes from Middle Earth. I wonder if this is a bit of a mix-up somewhere, as there are several very similar names: 'Elwe' (who is Thingol) and 'Elwing' (Earendil's wife and mother of Elrond and Elros) are referred to countless times throughout Tolkien's literature, but never 'Elwen' as far as I can see. Incidentally, I am not quite sure how to read this anecdote that the Cameron camp 'pretends' to be from Middle Earth with Cameron as Frodo - it sounds highly peculiar to me, and is reminiscent of drug-induced tomfoolery in the 60s with all those Galadriels and Bilbos at Glastonbury.

The name 'Elwen' then, seems to have very credible origins in Tolkien's Elvish. Certainly Samantha Cameron's reported personality doesn't preclude 'New-Agey' type influences, or her choosing an odd name! Assuming that 'Elwen' comes from Elvish roots, it is best translated as 'Star Maiden' rather than 'Elf [wise] friend'. 'El' in Sindarin is undeniably the word for 'Star', and can be found in numerous names and words throughout all of Tolkien's books. The morpheme 'wen' is generally conceded to mean 'maiden', although an explicit J.R.R. Tolkien translation is not available, so someone somewhere will probably say this is contentious. It is translated as 'maiden' in the Silmarillion appendices, although this is not always the most accurate of sources for Elvish meanings, as the appendices were written after Tolkien's death from some very illegible notes by Tolkien's son. However, an indepth look at the component 'wen' would appear to produce a pretty solid argument that it is feminine. Firstly, it only appears in the names of female characters: Arwen and Morwen being the best-known examples. Secondly, there is a specifically masculine component 'we' (also 'me'), which is used in the case of several male characters - Elwe, Manwe etc. The fact that such a morpheme exists, points to the 'we'/'wen' component being gender-specific - a name ending in 'wen' indicating that the owner is female. Finally, the ending of a name with an 'n' (as opposed to an 'ë' or another alternative) is again indicative of feminine gender in Sindarin.

So it appears that either way, whether from real-earth or Middle-Earth, the name 'Elwen' is more female than male. Why should this matter? Well, I will eat Boo if little Arthur doesn't end up in some sort of private education (my guess is Eton), and in places like that, pupils are intelligent/well educated/precocious enough to be able to find hilarity in the etymological roots of people's names - in short he'll have the mick taken out of him. Mind you, he'll probably have the mick taken out of him anyway for being the fifth ever Tory leader who failed to be PM...

*On a quick Google search, it turns out that there is one previous example of an 'Elwen Brooks' - a boxer from Doncaster - but every other reference is either a female user's screen name, or a real (female) name.