So... that's been a while, huh?

I'm going to try this again, over at my own website - I have no idea if anyone's following this, but if someone is still subscribed and want's to keep reading, head over to my new place and resubscribe there.

And here I thought kidnapping was a serious crime

But no, apparently not, as the US says it has right to kidnap British citizens. The only funny thing about this is the potential fora beautiful recursive loop, as they kidnap a British citizen, and the UK kidnaps the criminals who committed a kidnapping in the UK, and those desperate felons who kidnapped US citizens are then kidnapped back, until one country or the other runs out of kidnappers to send abroad.

After all, it may be legal under US law, but the kidnapping's still a very serious crime in the UK, so whoever does it is fair game to be dragged back in front of a UK court, right? Or does the US not recognise the rights of other countries to act in the same way they do? It would be nice if the US agreed that their agents would be bound by the laws of their allies (such as the UK) while in territories governed by said allies, but that wouldn't really go with the themes of this Administration - it would admit that there are some times and places where US law is not the be all and end all of the law.

Of course, if other people do decide to take this decision as good and legal, the CIA might be in for an uncomfortable time - as might Donald Rumsfeld, what with war crimes charges hanging over his head. But as with so many US positions at the moment, this is clearly only intended to benefit the US, and no one else gets to use these rules against America - that would be wrong.

(Discovered via Warren Ellis' blog.)

Sounds like a Fair Exchange

According to this Reuters report Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has an entertaining notion - if the US wants him to renew the lease on the air base they maintain in Ecuador (apparently the only one the US has in South America), they'll have to let Ecuador have a base in Miami in exchange.

Lets see what reasons the US government can come up with for saying no...

I've often wondered why no one ever calls the US on it's rather one sided deals with the rest of the world. Of course the US will look out for it's own interests primarily, but I often get the impression that US politicians don't see why the rest of the world doesn't share their priorities. So good for President Carrea, and hopefully this will get some people thinking about how the US looks from an outside point of view.

Goodthinkful comics

The latest issue of the Blue Beetle comic (issue 19) was, as ever, very good. What made it stand out to me was the odd little comic in the middle, an advert for AirHeads candy. For a start, it's eight pages long, making it an impressive length for an advert, but more important is the content.

I wish I could find a scan to post, but to summarise the plot - Lex Luthor and Brainiac use a force-field to lock Superman out of Metropolis. Lex then starts to give his speech about how he will make Metropolis into a great place, yadda yadda. Kids in the crowd get out some AirHeads - and along with the candy comes the bouncing balloon spokes-entity AirHead himself. He enters with the immortal lines "Civics? On a Saturday? Booor-iing!"

And starts spraying candy out to the crowd, turning it into a party where people ignore Lex's attempt to take over the state. Eventually, Brainiac is distracted by Airhead, and the force-field drops, letting Supes back in to arrest the crooks.

So, as far as I can tell, this is an eight page advert telling kids that, when evil politicians try to take over the government, the best thing to do is to ignore it and have a party - that's contributing to the solution! So run along little citizens, eat your candy, and remember not to vote...

Causus Belli between turkey and the US

At least arguably, that's what this is. After all, we keep hearing about how Iranian weapons in the hands of militants in Iraq is a reason for the US to attack Iran - how is this different?

Except, of course, that it's not the US that's the victim here, rather the US might be at fault. So I expect it won't play very heavily in the press unless Turkey decides to do something about it.

Oh Look! We're Suddenly Safer.

Or at least, we're back to a 'Severe' alert level, meaning that there's only a high risk of an attack, not an imminent danger of one. Given that no attack took place after the rise in alert levels to Critical at the end of June, I can only assume that the Government was wrong to raise it. After all, it went up after the incidents had already happened.

OMG Terrists!

Wacky - someone drove into Glasgow airport in a burning car, and fortunately no one is hurt. And the police would like to 'reassure' us that they don't know if it's connected to the car bombs found in London?

Why is not knowing better than knowing? Why would I prefer to think that there were two sets of lunatics wanting to blow people up? I'd be more reassured if the police knew, one way or the other, than by their ignorance. I don't get that comment at all.

On the other hand, if this is the worst Terror can get to us with, then good! These folk seem thoroughly incompetent.


Added bonus - after this, the Terror Alert Level was raised to Critical, meaning an attack is expected imminently. Odd, that - it looks like the attack has happened. No reason is given that we should expect more. How soon is 'imminent' anyway?