Just one piece of good news today, but I'm sure you'll agree it's a really good one.

BBC News reports today that Marguerite "Maggie" Barankitse has been awarded The Nansen Refugee Award, one of the UN's top awards, for her work helping Burundian refugees.

A woman dubbed the "Angel of Burundi" for her humanitarian work has been awarded a top United Nations' honour.

Marguerite Barankitse has spent the last 12 years caring for more than 10,000 children affected by the civil war in Burundi and other conflicts.

She also offers a place for women and child refugees returning to Burundi a place to rebuild their lives.

More than 10,000 children? That is quite something. Good on her. The article also explains a little about how her refugee project works:

She set up Maison Shalom, which means House of Peace, for the children to grow up in "families". Today there are four "children's villages" around the country, as well as a centre for orphans and vulnerable children in the capital Bujumbura.

The children learn how to manage a household and livestock and earn a living. They run a cinema, public swimming pool, restaurant, hair salon and guesthouse in Ruyigi. They also learn about health care, particularly on HIV/Aids issues.

Returnees and displaced people have also been helped to establish small income-generating projects such as sewing, carpentry and soap-making. ...

The UNHCR said in a statement Ms Barankitse was being recognised for her "tireless work with separated children whose lives have been devastated by war and the scourge of Aids".

Ms Barankitse - who has received wide recognition for her work - will receive a $10,000 grant for a refugee-related project of her choice on World Refugee Day in Brussels on 22 June.

The UNHCR website has a more detailed story about Ms Barankitse's project.

It is heartening to see not only that there are people like the "Angel of Burundi" around who are prepared to work so tirelessly to help the helpless, but also that her work is receiving the recognition it deserves. Good news indeed.

I wondered aloud in my blog post yesterday what Helen Clark was here in Berlin for. Well, now I know.

It turns out that apart from promoting New Zealand books, and presenting a bronze statue of a kiwi to the zoo, she was also meeting with German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to sign a new deal for Working Holiday Visas for young Germans to spend a year in New Zealand and vice versa, and meeting with German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, to discuss nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and biotech co-operation. [Warning: links in German].

The old working holiday visa program, which had been in place since 2000, will be replaced by a new program. As before, the visas will allow young NZers and Germans between the ages of 18 and 30 to spend up to a year working and travelling in the other country. The changes in the new system are these:

1) whereas previously there was a strict cap on the numbers of visas for New Zealand granted to Germans, in future there will be no limit on the numbers.

2) whereas previously New Zealanders in Germany on these visas could only work for up to 90 days during the course of a year, they will now be able to work here for a full year.

Sounds like an excellent development to me. I just wish a few more young New Zealanders would take advantage of the opportunity: in this Berliner Morgenpost article the New Zealand ambassador to Germany, Peter Hamilton is quoted as saying that there are only 200 New Zealanders currently living in Germany in total.

On the nuclear disarmament issue, Helen Clark held discussions with Schröder in advance of a major conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. After their meeting, Schröder said:

"We need to make serious, real progress on nuclear disarmament. ... That is something which especially affects states which already posess nuclear weapons. They must be prepared to move on this issue." [My translation]

Sounds like Ms Clark was busy while she was here. Good on her.

For the record, the Berliner Morgenpost article I linked to above has nothing but praise for New Zealand. The headline is: A Visit from New Zealand: good mood from the other end of the world. The first paragraph then goes on:

Delightfully relaxed, these New Zealanders. And they're in a good mood too. Prime Minister Helen Clark is happy with us Germans.

After a bit of a spiel about the visa arrangements I explained above, the last paragraph waxes lyrical about our little country:

Somehow many things just seem to work better at the other end of the world. In 1984 a phase of radical policy reform began: state-owned enterprises were privatised, the currency was devalued, agricultural subsidies cut, the top income tax rate cut - it is now at 33 percent. The 20 years of reform have been worth it. Amongst other things, the New Zealand prime minister discussed co-operation in the biotech industry with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. ... [My translations]

So it seems that, to German eyes, compared with the situation here, things are coming along just nicely in New Zealand. You wouldn't know it to hear the bleating of the opposition National party and their doomsayer leader Don Brash in the lead-up to the yet-to-be-announced general election. Perhaps someone should tell him?

Barnaby M. Cat is my cat, or rather our cat: mine and Ms Bear's. Barnaby, or Barney, is a British Short-Hair, who has just recently turned two. Yesterday he had the most exciting day of his short life. He either jumped or fell or was pushed off the roof. We live on the third floor, so it was quite a leap/fall.

We live in an apartment on the top level of an old house. On both sides of the apartment we have windows which open out on to a little piece of roof, from which it is a three-storey drop to the ground.

Though he's an indoor cat, Barnaby is quite the hunter. He takes great joy in hunting down and killing any insect or spider foolish enough to stray into his territory (read: the entire flat); he watches the birds through the window with great interest and much salivation; and when we take him outside into the garden he makes it very clear (to the birds and to us) that if we weren't holding him back they'd be toast.

Barnaby also very much likes to climb out windows. Despite our best efforts, this has happened several times before. Once this ended with him happily sitting on the windowsill of the bathroom window in the driving rain, and once it ended in me having to lean a long way out the study window to pluck him by the scruff of the neck from the roof just before he launched himself after a bird sitting in a tree quite a distance away. (He would never have made it, but he didn't know that).

Barnaby, like most cats, is also pretty stealthy, and has a knack for getting to places he's not supposed to be without you noticing. Oh, and for a cat, he is also smart.

Well, yesterday, all those traits came together in a stunt that, frankly, I'm a bit amazed he survived. While I was doing the dishes, Barnaby snuck into the study where I, idiot, had pushed the window lightly to, but failed to close it completely and lock it. He must have jumped up on the desk, used a paw to pry the window open (it opens inwards, so it was not just a matter of pushing), and promptly headed out onto the patch of roof for a little adventure. Well, did he ever get his adventure!

After I finished doing the dishes, I went and sat with Ms Bear on the couch to watch some TV. A minute or so later we heard the flapping and wing-beating of a crow landing on the patch of roof outside the window, then a loud squawk, then a thud. Surprised, we went to look, found the window open, and quickly ascertained that Barney was not inside the flat.

A little bit of panic ensued. Eventually, by leaning out the window, I spotted Barnaby down on the path, looking up at me. He wasn't below the window though, he was a fair way along the path, so he must have got up after his leap/fall and wandered along there. Relieved that at least he wasn't dead, I raced downstairs and grabbed him, and Ms Bear and I inspected him to see if he was ok. He was fine. No limps, no scratches, no tender patches anywhere, nothing. Absolutely unscathed. He was, though, a bit quiet and sheepish for the rest of the evening, so I think he must have had quite a fright on his way down. Today he's back to his normal self and I suspect he has probably not learnt much from the ordeal, except perhaps that he can survive the fall - which is not the lesson I would have liked him to take from it.

It's not clear exactly what happened. I don't know whether the crow just strayed too close and Barney took a swipe at him and lost his balance and fell, or whether after Barney took a swipe at the crow the agitated crow took a swipe at Barney and knocked him off the roof, or whether Barney took a first swipe at the crow and then leaped after it for a second swipe as it attempted to fly away. I suspect it was probably the last scenario, but I can't be sure.

What I am sure of though is that Barnaby M. Cat is now down to eight lives, and I won't be leaving the study window unlocked again any time soon.

Oh, and the M., in case you were wondering, stands for Mischief. Pretty apt, I think.

Since my last discussion of search terms that brought you here seemed to go down quite nicely (and since everyone else who has a blog seems to do it too), I thought I'd give you another update about the kinds of searches that have led people to The Capital Letter in recent times.

The most popular search by far in the last two weeks has been for Pimp my Fahrrad or variations thereof. A Google search for that finds this site at 7th on the list. Shows that that program must have generated a fair bit of interest. I've hunted around for anything more worthwhile to say about it, in vain I'm afraid.

The following searches (there may be others, but I haven't noticed them yet) have this site at number one on the Google search list: Dogs bollocks German (huh?, truly alarming), Toad explode Berlin (numbskull, it was in Hamburg that that was happening), and moist archetypal circumlocution (how that particular constellation of search terms came together is completely beyond me!)

My favourite searches that found this site in the past two weeks are these:
1) Poop+Benedict+Stout
2) Berlin love parade 2005 dates confirmed

Re: search 1, I can only assume that is was meant to be Pope Benedict, but where the stout comes from I haven't the faintest idea.
Re: search 2, as I've said the Love Parade is off this year, so yeah, the dates have been confirmed as no dates. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

No searches for sex templates at all in the past two weeks though, which was a bit disappointing after a good start.

While I have been typing this, my 5,000th visitor to this blog stopped by (if the numbers are to be believed). It was somebody in Italy, looking at the Explode-a-Toad posting. Not bad for the first six weeks, even if I do say so myself. Also, for the first time since I installed Site Meter just over two weeks ago, I had over 100 unique visits in a day yesterday. 118 actually. I know that makes me only desperately piddly small-fry in the blogging world, but it's gratifying nonetheless. So thank you all for stopping by and for your contributions in the comments and by email. Your visits and feedback are much appreciated. Keep them coming.

Today New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark is here in Berlin on a state visit. I only know this because I was talking to a New Zealand embassy employee about the arrangements for her visit earlier this week. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had the faintest idea, as it has largely slipped under the news radar here, as in New Zealand. And indeed a comprehensive search of German news sources today has turned up nothing. Or almost nothing.

I have in fact found three mentions in the media that the PM is currently here. The first is in today's Tagesspiegel, a broadsheet Berlin newspaper. , I discover that HC will be visiting the zoo while she is here, and making a gift of a bronze statue of a kiwi:

Today is "Otto's" big day. He is meeting the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Helen Elisabeth Clark is on a world tour and is visiting Berlin, amongst other places. This is where "Otto" lives - he is the eldest of five representatives in the Berlin Zoo of a bird species that cannot fly. The kiwi is the national bird of New Zealand and is only allowed to leave its homeland with the highest government-level approval. The first pair of kiwis were brought to Berlin in 1986 by the then parliamentary president Peter Rebsch after a trip to New Zealand. Now Prime Minister Clark is bringing another kiwi as a gift: a sculpture that will be ceremonially unveiled today.

And that's it. I strongly suspect that HC is not only here to unveil a sculpture, but the article leaves me none the wiser.

The next mention of the PM's trip is actually in a New Zealand source. Scoop.co.nz has the story of how she will be promoting New Zealand books while she is here:

Three New Zealand pictorial books will feature during a reception hosted by Prime Minister Helen Clark in Berlin, Germany on April 28th.

Moments of Tranquillity - New Zealand Landscapes, New Zealand 360 Landscape Panoramas by German photographers Jens Waldenmaier and Thorsten Tiedeke and New Zealand, a book showcasing over 1,200 previously unpublished photographs will be promoted.

Goodo, but again I seriously doubt that this is point of her visit.

The only other mention I could find anywhere was in a comprehensive article about the New Zealand economy in this week's Spiegel. Almost incidental to the actual topic of the article is this passing mention of Clark's trip to Berlin:

When the Prime Minister comes to Berlin this week on a state visit, it may well interest Chancellor Gerhard Schröder whether there is something to be learned from New Zealand's situation. For example: if a government wishes to carry out successful reforms, must it occasionally be brutal? And: if so, does it have any chance of being re-elected?

OK, so Helen Clark is presenting a bronze Kiwi, promoting three books and giving Gerhard Schröder advice on how to get re-elected. But is that it? It can't be, but I'm blowed if I can find out from anywhere what exactly she's here for.

Just serves as a telling reminder of how small and insignificant New Zealand really is on the global news scene. I've long since come to terms with that and, in fact, at times I think it's rather nice.

In yet another illustration of what is so desperately wrong with the United Nations Human Rights Commission and of why it is so badly in need of reform, Zimbabwe was yesterday re-elected for a further three year term on that body.

BBC News has the full story.

The United States and other countries have protested about the re-election of Zimbabwe to the UN's main human rights body, the Human Rights Commission.

Zimbabwe was one of 15 countries chosen by members of the UN's Economic and Social Council in New York. All but one were chosen by consensus.

Critics say too many countries with appalling human rights records have been on the commission. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has recommended it should be replaced.

Though it is patently hypocritical for it to do so given its own current record on human rights, the US is right to protest at this appointment. It is joined in its criticism by Australia and Canada. Why are they the only ones saying anything? Why did the Southern African countries nominate Zimbabwe for re-election in the first place?

In response to the criticism, the Zimbabwean ambassador to the UN came up wih this:

However, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, Boniface Chidyausiku, said that when it came to human rights no country was beyond reproach.

He's right, of course, but that does not mean that the UN Human Rights Commission needs to be a collection of some of the world's worst human rights offenders. You only need to take a look at the Freedom House Report, The Worst of the Worst, or Amnesty International website to know that Zimbabwe is way down the list when it comes to human rights.

This Washington Post article has a bit more detail, including a list of the other 14 members elected yesterday:

Zimbabwe was one of 15 members elected to the Commission on Human Rights Wednesday for a three-year term from 1 January 2006. The others were Botswana, Cameroon and Morocco from the group of African States; Bangladesh, China and Japan from the group of Asian States; Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela from the group of Latin American and Caribbean States and Australia, Austria, Germany and the United States from the group of Western European and other states.

As there were more candidates from the Group of Eastern European States than vacancies, the Council held a secret ballot, after which it elected Azerbaijan.

From a human rights perspective, that list doesn't exactly make pretty reading.

For a couple of days I've been meaning to post about my own Anzac day experience here in Berlin, but various other things have got in the way. But now, finally, here goes.

It occurred to me that many of you who read my blog aren't from either New Zealand or Australia, so all this Anzac day palaver might be completely new to you. For your benefit, here is a brief potted history of Anzac day, lifted from the programme at the service I went to.

The History of Anzac Day

The Anzac tradition - the ideals of courage, endurance and mateship - was established on 25 April 1915 when the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula.

It was the start of a campaign that lasted eight months and resulted in over 130,000 casualties from both sides. Of these, the 11,410 Australians and New Zealanders represented a huge loss for he two fledging nations.

The men who served on the Gallipoli Peninsula created a legend, adding the word Anzac to the Australian and New Zealand vocabularies and creating the notion of the Anzac spirit.

In 1916, the first anniversary of the landing was observed in Australia, New Zealand and England and by troops in Egypt. That year, 25 April was officially named Anzac Day by the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, George Pearce.

That little piece, though it is nice and succinct, omits a few key details:
1) The entire Gallipoli campaign was an unmitigated disaster for the Allies. It completely failed to achieve any of its strategic aims whatsoever.
2) The campaign itself was the hare-brained idea of none other than Winston Churchill. It was intended that by taking the Gallipoli peninsula, Allied Troops would control the Dardanelles, thus freeing up the way for an advance on Constantinople (now Istanbul) and knocking Turkey out of the war. None of that happened.
3) The generals, admirals and commanders in charge of the campaign hopelessly underestimated their opponent, and had no clear idea of how they should best go about achieving their strategic aims. They were, essentially, blundering about cluelessly in the dark, sacrificing young men's lives by the thousand.
4) The Anzac casualties were vastly outnumbered by the French, British and Turkish casualties (in that order), though of course on a per capita of population basis the New Zealanders and Australians were the hardest hit.
5) The Turkish troops were led in this campaign by Mustafa Kemal (who later renamed himself Kemal Ataturk), who made a name for himself as a brilliant leader and strategist and went on to found modern Turkey.
6) Perhaps most importantly, the campaign bred amonst the Anzac troops a strong and healthy respect and admiration for the bravery, stubbornness, and sheer willpower of the Turks against whom they were fighting, and vice versa.

I only mention that last point because it will help to understand certain aspects of the service I attended, discussed below. If you're interested, you can find more on the history of the Gallipoli campaign here, and here. In book form, I can also heartily recommend L.A. Carlyon's Gallipoli as a thoroughly gripping and informative read.

Anyway, enough background.

So, on a cool and windy 25th April, Ms Bear and I headed off to the Anzac Day Ceremony at the Berlin 1939-45 War Cemetery in Berlin Charlottenburg. It was organised jointly (hear that John Howard?) by the Australian and New Zealand Embassies. We arrived about half an hour early, which I was pleased about, because it gave us the chance to wander around the beautifully presented and very serene cemetery almost completely alone. As the name implies, those buried in this cemetary were not Gallipoli casualties, but rather World War II victims, from all of the Allied Nations. I've noted this in War cemeteries before, but it never fails to shock me: almost all of the soldiers buried there never made it to my age. Accordingly, by the time the ceremony itself started, I was already feeling pretty moved and choked up.

There were perhaps 70 or 80 people in attendance. They included the Australian, New Zealand and British Ambassadors, the Turksih Charge d'Affaires, Australian, New Zealand and Turkish Defence Force representatives and sundry invited guests such as ourselves. The service itself was brief, only about 25 minutes in total. But it was very moving. This was the first Anzac Service I'd been to where Turkish representatives were in attendance, and I must say I thought it was a very nice touch. It greatly added to the strong sense that I always have on Anzac Day that it is by no means a celebration of war, but rather a celebration of peace on a day where we remind ourselves of the futility and senselessness of war. (Why else would we New Zealanders and Australians choose to remember our war dead on a day that symbolises perhaps our most resounding military defeat of all time?)

After an opening prayer from an Anglican minister and a reading and prayer in Turkish from one of the Turkish representatives, the Australian ambassador and New Zealand ambassadors both made moving speeches about the meaning of Anzac day. They were two of the best Anzac Day speeches I've heard, and I wish I had copies of them to share with you.

But then came what, for me, was the most moving part of the ceremony. Mr Adnan Basaga, the Turkish Charge d'Affaires read this piece:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives...
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
Here in this country of ours ...

You, the Mothers,
Who sent their sons from far away countries
Wipe away your tears;
Your sons are now lying in our bosom
And are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they
Have become our sons as well.

Kemal Atatürk, 1934

That, to me, just about says it all, much more eloquently and movingly than I could have.

In addition, there were of course a couple of hymns, a reading from Laurence Binyon's Ode for the Fallen, a prayer of remembrance, and the Last Post and Reveille played by a lone bugler. All very moving stuff. Having missed out on observing a couple of Anzac Days while I was living in the UK, I was very pleased to have been there. And the drinks and nibbles at the Australian Ambassador's residence afterwards were nice too. In case you're wondering, I did manage to bite my tongue about Teflon John's no-show in Gallipoli!

For any Kiwis or Australians living in Germany, I would urge you to get yourselves on your embassy's list of residents. That way you'll get an invite to this ceremony next year too. It's well worth the effort.

I've never cared very much for philosophy. That is at least partly because I've never read enough to really understand what it's all about, and partly because I thought much of it was bombastic fluff. However, inspired by spanblather, I took the "Which philosophy do you follow?" test and was at least mildly surprised by the results. Accordingly, I thought I'd share.

You scored as Utilitarianism. Your life is guided by the principles of Utilitarianism: You seek the greatest good for the greatest number. “The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” --Jeremy Bentham “Whenever the general disposition of the people is such, that each individual regards those only of his interests which are selfish, and does not dwell on, or concern himself for, his share of the general interest, in such a state of things, good government is impossible.” --John Stuart Mill More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Utilitarianism 90% Existentialism 85% Justice (Fairness) 65% Hedonism 55% Kantianism 35% Apathy 25% Strong Egoism 20% Nihilism 10% Divine Command 5% What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

If you're so inclined, let me know what philosophy you follow. Not that I actually have the wherewithal or knowledge to interpret the results, but hey, it might be interesting.

If you have kids and one of your kids ever comes to you and suggests that he or she would like to join the circus, I suggest you whip this out as a strong argument for not joining the circus, ever:



[Hat-tip to Mikachen]

In this article in today's New Zealand Herald, we find that poor, put-upon Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard is 'dismayed' by talk that he deliberately snubbed the New Zealand memorial service at Gallipoli two days ago. I blogged about this issue here.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is said to be dismayed by reports that he snubbed New Zealand’s memorial service at Gallipoli and has given a personal explanation to Prime Minister Helen Clark. ...

Mr Howard’s decision to go to a barbecue on the beach with his troops instead of the New Zealand service received extensive coverage in New Zealand for the two days before the 90th anniversary commemorations and after it.

Some reports said New Zealand officials had tried to convince Australian officials to get Mr Howard to attend, warning that it would be seen as an insult. ...

But according to Helen Clark’s spokesman, Mr Howard told Helen Clark that no one had told him that the New Zealand service was being held at a different time to Australia’s. He had not realised it was possible to attend both.

He was said to have been as dismayed as she was at reports that he had snubbed the service.

You know what I think? I think that is bollocks. No one told him that the NZ service was being held at a different time? Crap! When travel arrangements are made for Prime Ministers, whole teams of embassy, security, liaison and press staff are involved in making sure everything runs smoothly, right down to the last detail. And not one of them knew that there were two different ceremonies going on at two different times? How can it be then that the New Zealand contingent knew exactly what the Australian plans were and could plan their own movements accordingly? What about the "flurry of emails" that is said to have been exchanged between New Zealand and Australian defence staff to sort out this problem? Did no one who received those emails think perhaps the details should be passed on to the Prime Minister? In short, of course Howard knew.

My assessment of John Howard from the other day as "an odious little man with an attitude problem and a misplaced desire to turn his country into a carbon-copy of the USA" stands. Having read this story, I think I can now safely add liar to that list.

From the "now that is truly weird" file comes this story about toads in Hamburg. Deutsche Welle reports in this article that Hamburg residents are being asked to stay away from one of the city's lakes because the toads in it keep spontaneously combusting.

Danger: This toad may explode! [Source: Deutsche Welle]

Hundreds of toads have met a bizarre and sinister end in recent days. According to reports from animal welfare workers and veterinarians as many as a thousand of the amphibians have perished after their bodies swelled to bursting point and their entrails were propelled for up to a meter.

Eye-witnesses to the spontaneously combusting toads have described the traumatic events as being like something from a science fiction film.

Werner Smolnik, a spokesperson for a nature protection society in the city is as flabbergasted as anyone. "You see the animals crawling on the ground, swelling and then exploding," he told AFP. He said the bodies of the toads expanded to three and a half times their normal size.

Mmmm, tasty. So what could the cause of this spontaneous combustion possibly be? There are a few theories doing the rounds.

Explanations include an unknown virus, a fungus that has infected the water, or crows, which in an echo of the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Birds, attack the toads, literally scaring them to death.

My money's on a virus. I don't know about you, but I reckon that last explanation is bollocks. Even if crows were scaring the poor toads to death, does that explain the swelling to three and a half times their normal size and exploding? Surely if they were being scared to death, they would just have their heart stop and they'd just drop dead, rather than exploding and sending their entrails flying hither and thither, right?

Perhaps if this is a virus it could be isolated and used on John Howard. He's a bit toady. Just a thought.

Tomorrow, 25th April, is ANZAC day. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. ANZAC day is the day on which New Zealand and Australia remember their soldiers who landed at Gallipoli in the First World War and fought there against the Turks, who were defending the peninsula from Allied invasion. More generally, ANZAC day has become the day on which New Zealanders and Australians honour all of their returned servicemen and women and their war dead. It is a public holiday in both countries, and there are a great many memorial services held, not only in New Zealand and Australia, but also in Turkey and around the world. For example, I will be going to an ANZAC day service tomorrow here in Berlin, organised jointly by the Australian and New Zealand embassies. Anyway, the point is, ANZAC day is a big deal to many New Zealanders and Australians.

Given that, perhaps you can imagine the sense of indignation that many New Zealanders will be feeling when they read that Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has decided to fly in the face of tradition and snub the New Zealand memorial service at Gallipoli this year. Instead, he'll be at a barbeque on the beach. No, really. The full story is at Scoop.

Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard will be boycotting an official ANZAC Day New Zealand ceremony at Chunuk Bair, Gallipoli, preferring instead to attend a barbeque on the shores of ANZAC Cove.

The snub had New Zealand foreign affairs and defence officials exchanging emails with their Australian counterparts over the past two weeks. Attempts to find a solution to the snub have proven to be futile.

John Howard’s decision not to attend is being perceived as an insult by veterans, senior defence officials, and, Australian and New Zealand visitors here at Gallipoli. One senior New Zealand officer said it is an outrage.

OK, so let me clarify. It's not as though John Howard is somewhere else entirely and can't make it. John Howard will be attending the Australian ceremony in the morning. But then, when the New Zealand ceremony takes place a couple of hours later, good old John will be at a barbie on the beach just a couple of kilometres away. Pardon my French, but what a knob!

As the name ANZAC implies, the Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought alongside each other (along also with many thousand of British and French troops) at Gallipoli. It was very much a joint effort. So to say that this decision by good old Johnny is a bit of an insult to New Zealand veterans would be putting it mildly.

It will be interesting to see if there is any political fallout from this. There has been no indication at this stage what Howard's reasons for not attending might be. For the moment, the NZ Prime Minister (who is not in Gallipoli this year) has been very diplomatic about it:

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is not publicly critical of the Australian PM’s boycott but appeared outwardly annoyed. She said: “That (the decision) is entirely a matter for Mr Howard on how he designs his programme… Mr Howard’s programme is entirely for him to determine.

But I'll be surprised if nothing at all is said in the aftermath.

I'm afraid that this just further confirms my previously-held impression of John Howard as, frankly, an arrogant tosser. It is completely beyond me how and why the Australian electorate goes on re-electing him time after time after time. If I were Australian, I'd view him as an embarrassment to my country. As I am not, I simply view him as an odious little man with an attitude problem and a misplaced desire to turn his country into a carbon-copy of the USA.

Can you tell this has got me wound up? OK, sorry, I'll stop now.

[Update 25/04/05 14:00] OK, it's actually worse than I thought it was. Contrary to my original post, I've now found out that the New Zealand Prime Minister is in Gallipoli today, and attended both the Australian and New Zealand services. I'll be posting later today about the very moving ANZAC service here in Berlin that I've just returned from.]

It's Saturday, and the sun is shining again, so it's time for another good news round-up from around the world.

First up, this week the Berlin Ice-Hockey team, the Eisbären Berlin (Berlin Polar Bears) won the German title for the first time since reunification. It's 17 years since they last won a title, in the then East German league. That's the good news. The bad news is that, apparently, no one here seems to care.

Staying with sport, the next piece of good news is that Newcastle's Lee Bowyer has had his suspension for fighting with teammate Kieron Dyer extended to seven weeks. You may recall that I blogged about my disgust at this incident a couple of weeks back. Well, since then, Bowyer has been suspended for four weeks (now increased to seven), fined six weeks' wages by his club, received a "final warning", and faces criminal charges over the incident. Good, that's what I like to see, action.

Still on sport (I know, sorry, I'll move on soon, I promise!), six times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong announced this week that he will be retiring from professional cycling after this year's Tour. Why is this good news, you wonder? Well, it's certainly good news for Armstrong's rivals and Tour de France hopefuls such as Jan Ullrich, Damiano Cunego and Ivan Basso. While they won't actually admit to it, they'll be very pleased to see him move over and allow them to have a crack at the title. Armstrong's has been a truly amazing career. The fact that he is the only cyclist ever to win six Tours de France is amazing enough in and of itself. But what is truly staggering about this feat is that he achieved all of these wins after being diagnosed with, and then recovering from, testicular cancer. Quite apart from that, Armstrong is the first genuine world cycling superstar. It doesn't make him the greatest cyclist in history, an honour which in my view still goes to Belgian Eddy Merckx, but it is quite an achievement nonetheless. BBC sport has an excellent tribute to LA, written by former British professional Chris Boardman. It's worth a read.

And finally, today's last piece of good news. This week saw Spain's lower house of parliament pass a bill to allow same-sex marriages in Spain. The bill still has to pass through the Spanish senate before it becomes law, but that is expected to happen without any hitches. If passed, this bill will makes Spain only the third European country to legalise same sex marriages, after the Netherlands and Belgium. The BBC, which covers the story here, writes:

Under the proposed bill, Spanish Civil Law would include the phrase: "Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex."

Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".

The vote in parliament was passed by 183 votes, with 136 against and six abstentions. Members of gay and lesbian groups in the public gallery cheered and clapped when the result was read out.

How very progressive of the Spanish government. I am pleased, even if the new Pope is not.

And that completes this week's good news Saturday roundup. All part of the service.

That was quick! Just days after the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI an Irish bookmaker, Paddy Power, is already taking bets on who the next Pope will be.

BBC covers the story here.

Pope Benedict has only been in the job one day but a book has already been opened on his successor.

Odds are being offered by Paddy Power, the Dublin-based bookmaker, who earned the displeasure of the Vatican by taking bets on this week's election.

Seems a bit harsh to me. As far as I can tell, Benedict XVI is in pretty good health, so it seems Paddy Power might be jumping the gun a little. In any case, for those interested, the full list of odds is here. From looking at it, I reckon Bono might be a good tip at 1000/1. No, really.

I particularly loved this statement from Paddy Power:

"Judging by the requests we have received, people are already looking to have another go, possibly to re-invest their winnings," he said."Like any event when a champion is crowned, we have resumed betting on his likely successor."

But while Mr Power will give you odds on just about anyone becoming pope, he is not taking bets on when the next conclave will be. "Now that would be in bad taste," he said.

Bad taste indeed.

Presumably, everyone now knows the story of Armin Meiwes, the "cannibal of Rotenburg", who was last year convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison, for killing and eating Jürgen Brandes. The reason he was not convicted of murder was because the victim had volunteered to be cannibalised in response to an ad placed on a cannibalism website.

Anyway, Meiwes is back in the news again here in Germany. This morning, the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany's highest criminal court, overturned the original verdict and ordered a retrial. Deutsche Welle has the full story here, including all the gory details.

The idea is that in the retrial, Meiwes will be tried for murder, not manslaughter, which carries a maximum prison term of life imprisonment.

To me, this case is problematic. On the one hand, I find the killing and cannibalism itself absolutely abhorrent, and I'd like to see the guy who is capable of doing that off the streets for a long, long time. But on the other hand, since the victim volunteered to be killed and eaten, travelled to Meiwes willingly, briefly decided he couldn't go through with it, but then came back again, and participated in the eating of the first body part removed (and yes, the body part you're thinking of is the right one), can you really call it murder? As I am not a lawyer, I don't know the ins and outs of the definition of murder, but it certainly doesn't seem cut and dried to me. I'm definitely not saying I think cannibalism is ok if the victim volunteers, don't get me wrong. I just think it's much more complex an issue than it appear to be at first glance.

I'll be interested to see what happens in the retrial. I'll keep you posted.


Update: I've given this some more thought. It seems to me almost as though this case is too weird, and too sick for current criminal codes to handle. As I understand it, one of the problems is that here in Germany, and I presume everywhere else, there is nothing in the criminal code anywhere about cannibalism. That's why they had to plump for the manslaughter/murder distinction when they charged him. I wonder whether in fact we need to update the criminal code to make cannibalism a crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I would have no problem with that at all. But given that such a crime and corresponding penalty are not yet legislated for, is it appropriate to squeeze the Meiwes case into the murder category just because that's the category with the appropriate penalty? The straight answer is that I don't know. But I'd certainly be interested to hear what you think.

If you were planning to come to Berlin this summer for the Love Parade, change your plans. You can still come to Berlin, of course, but you can't come to the Love Parade, because it's been cancelled.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel covers the story here [warning: in German].

For those of you who can't read it, here is my translation of the salient bits:

The Berlin Love Parade 2005 has been cancelled once and for all. This was confirmed on Wednesday evening by Sünje von Ahn from Love Parade Ltd. The representatives of Love Parade Ltd have taken this decision because there is no longer enough time remaining before the planned date for the parade, 9th July, to complete negotiations with potential sponsors. As we reported, several corporations, such as Samsung and T-Mobile, had previously withdrawn their offers of sponsorship.

"We deeply regret that we will be unable to hold the Berlin Love Parade this year. Through constructive dialogue with the State of Berlin, private enterprise and the media, we will do everything in our power to come up with a solution that will make a comeback of this very popular parade possible in 2006, the year of the Football World Cup" the organisers said in a statement.

Though the organisers are saying they'll be back, from what I've been reading it sounds very much like that might well be it for good for the Love Parade. It seems it may have done its dash. So if, like me, you have never been to a Love Parade, chances are you probably never will.

In other news around Germany, obviously the new Pope has been dominating headlines here. Yesterday, the day after the announcement, every single newspaper I saw predictably lead with the "Cardinal Ratzinger becomes Benedict XVI" story. Interpretations varied widely though.

At one end of the scale, the tabloid Bild Zeitunglead with a huge photo of the new Pope with the fairly hopeful and utterly deluded headline "Wir sind Papst" (We are the Pope). Ah, yeah, sure. Shall I be the one to break it to them, or do you guys want to?

At the other end of the scale, the much higher brow, but strongly left-wing daily die tageszeitung (taz) was the only paper I saw which didn't have a photo of the new pope on the front page (with the exception of the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which doesn't do photos on the front page, darling). Instead, rather betraying its opinion on the election of Cardinal Ratzinger before you even opened the paper, the taz had an entirely black front page, interrupted only by the words "Oh, mein Gott", which presumably need no translation. Suffice it to say, the taz was not convinced he was a good choice!

In general it would be fair to say that there's been a very mixed and not overwhelmingly positive reception to the election of the first German Pope in 480 years. The general consensus seems to be that people are quite pleased to have a German pope (especially the Bavarians), but don't have much nice to say about Ratzinger personally. I think that overall German Catholics (and certainly non-Catholic Germans) were rather hoping for a more liberal pope than John Paul II, and the feeling is that, if anything, Benedict XVI will be even more conservative. Of course, we won't know until he has a crack at it will we, and by then I'll probably be blogging about something else entirely.

Continuing on the religious theme, here's one from the "only in America" "you must be taking the piss" file:

'Virgin Mary' on US motorway wall.

No, really. Check it out. It's so obvious!


From the BBC article:

Hundreds have flocked to a motorway underpass in the US city of Chicago to view a stain on a concrete wall many say is an image of the Virgin Mary.

Police have been patrolling the emergency turnoff area under the city's Kennedy Expressway, where the faithful have taken flowers and candles. "We believe it's a miracle," a woman told the Associated Press agency. "We have faith and we can see her face."

But the authorities say the image is likely to be a stain caused by salt."

So, is it the Virgin Mary or, umm, salt? You be the judge.

So, today was the day they chose the new Pope. That was quick. Rather caught me by surprise I must admit: both the speed and the choice of Pope. Anyhow, it made the choice of topic for today's post pretty simple.


The new Pope: Benedict XVI [Source: BBC]

Anyone who was hoping for a more liberal Pope than John Paul II to lead the Roman Catholic Church will be disappointed by the decision of the Cardinals in the conclave. They have elected the conservative hardline German, Joseph Ratzinger. At 78, he is the oldest Pope to be elected in over a century. He is the first German to become Pope for over 480 years. He has taken the name Benedict XVI.

The BBC covers the story here.
There are a few pictures of his first appearance here.
There's also a profile of Ratzinger here.

From the BBC profile:

"His supporters say his experiences under the Nazi regime convinced him that the church had to stand up for truth and freedom. But his critics say he stands for suppressing discussion within the church.

Wolfgang Cooper, a commentator on religious affairs in Germany, said before his election that the cardinal could become a divisive figure. "I think if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope, a large distance could grow between the leadership of the Church and the faith," he predicted before the result was known.

The cardinal is a "scientist" who "prefers intellectual discussions", says Mr Cooper, whereas many Catholics want priests and bishops "who will touch the hearts"."

It will be interesting to see what the reaction here in Germany is to the election of the first German Pope in over 480 years. On first impressions from what's been on the television so far it looks as though it will be a bit mixed. Many will be chuffed to have a German pope, but on the other hand, Ratzinger has angered German Catholics with his conservative stances before.

Inspired by the papal theme, I decided to track down a few things I'd be willing to bet you didn't know about popes.

For one thing, the Roman Catholic Pope isn't the only pope. Not by any stretch of the imagination. As a Guardian column from a couple of months ago explains:

"To take first things first, though Pope John Paul II certainly is a Catholic, he is by no means the only Pope. The title, deriving from the Greek pappas , or father, is widely used in the broader Christian church. The head of the Egyptian Coptic church is a pope. So too are many bishops in the eastern Orthodox churches. Statistically speaking therefore, based on the number and religious affiliation of existing popes, the Pope is unlikely to be a Catholic.

If, of course, the question seeks to ask whether the the Pope is a (small-c) catholic, then the answer is simple. The word "catholic" means universal or all-encompassing. Though all Christian churches, including Protestant ones, claim to be catholic, it's fairly evident that all of them maintain points of difference from other denominations. Thus, though all popes claim to be catholic, none of them is anything of the sort."

This piece at rense.com is veritably bursting with interesting, little-known info about the papacy and its history. Like for example, how you can tell when the pope is dead:

"On the evening of Saturday April 2, 2005, after receiving the Rite of Extreme Unction, Pope John Paul II passed away. At this time his chamberlain would have gone to the papal hospital bed and asked the Bishop of Rome a question, "Are you dead?" There would be no reply from the Pope. The chamberlain would then pick up a silver hammer and strike the Pope on the head and repeat his question, "Are you dead?" Again there would be no reply. The chamberlain would then thrice call out the Pope's baptismal name. He would then declare the Pope to be dead.

This is the way the Church has determined papal deaths for centuries. This is the way of the world's oldest monarchy."

See, now I bet you didn't know that silver hammer trick, right?

I bet you also thought that the papacy had always been the preserve of righteous, godly, celibate men too, right? Wrong.

"Another interesting figure was Alexander VI (formerly Rodrigo Borgia). He reigned from 1492-1503. Alexander committed his first murder at the age of 12. Upon assuming the Papal miter he cried, "I am Pope, Vicar of Christ!" In his Decline and Fall Gibbon referred to Alexander as the Tiberius of Rome. Like his predecessor Innocent VIII, Alexander sired many children, baptized them personally and officiated at their weddings in the Vatican. He had ten known illegitimate children (including the notorious Cesare and Lucrezia), by his favorite mistress Vannoza Catanei. When she faded, Borgia took the 15-year old Giulia Farnese. Farnese obtained a Cardinal's red hat for her brother who later became Paul III."

But Alexander was nothing. At least he was of legal age. Check out these two:

"In 964 Pope Benedict V raped a young girl and absconded to Constantinople with the papal treasury only to reappear when the money ran out. Church historian Gerbert called Benedict 'the most iniquitous of all the monsters of ungodliness.' The pontiff was eventually slain by a jealous husband. His corpse, bearing a hundred dagger wounds, was dragged through the streets before being tossed into a cesspit.

In October 1032 the papal miter was purchased for the 11-year old Benedict IX. Upon reaching his 14th year, a chronicler wrote that Benedict had already surpassed in wantonness and profligacy all who had preceded him. He often had to leave Rome in a hurry."

On the strength of all that, I think it's probably pretty safe for me to suggest that the papacy of Benedict XVI will be a little more sedate than that of some of his predecessors. Of course, I've been wrong before.

OK, here is a weird story from Virginia. According to the Daily Press, three Virginia schoolkids have been suspended from their school and taken to court for doing dodgy stuff on the school bus. And I am not talking pulling the girls' pony tails, or not staying seated! Check it out:

"A 15-year-old girl has been charged with two counts of crimes against nature and one count of indecent exposure for an April 7 incident on a school bus, James City County police said.

Two 16-year-old boys were each charged with one count each of crimes against nature for the same incident. Other students reported that the girl exposed her breasts and performed oral sex on the boys on the bus, Maj. Stan Stout said.

All three students were suspended from school pending a hearing, he said. A spokesman with Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools declined to comment.The students attended the Center for Educational Opportunities, an alternative education program designed for students with disciplinary problems or special needs."

You what?!? On the school bus?!? Wow! Presumably I am not the only one whose school bus journeys were considerably more tame than that. The most exciting level things ever reached on our school bus rides was the very occasional disagreements which escalated into handbags at six paces. Oh, and that one psycho bus driver who suffered from road rage and a penchant for speeding, braking heavily and skipping bus stops which she felt impeded her bus's progress unduly - but she didn't last very long. But oral sex and girls flashing their tits? Never. More's the pity. It would have made the interminable hours of sitting afternoon traffic jams much more enjoyable.

The other thing about this article, and the one that inspired the title, is this: What on earth is a "crime against nature"? And what makes oral sex a crime against nature? Since there are plenty of animal species that perform oral sex on each other, even homosexual oral sex, I wonder what makes humans having oral sex "against nature". It seems a bit odd to me. Granted the school bus is perhaps not the ideal place to hone skills such as these, but a crime against nature? Come on!

Are there other crimes against nature I ought to know about? Is this a specifically Virginia thing, or is it all over the US? Why didn't they just charge them all with indecent exposure?

Well, it had to happen sooner or later: I missed a day of blogging yesterday. Shock, horror! Sorry, but I was out and about and busy. And in any case, Saturday was supposed to have become Good news Saturday on this blog, and yesterday I didn't have any good news worth sharing, I'm afraid. In fact, the blogging gaps are likely to happen a bit more often in the next little while as I have a busy few weeks coming up research-wise. You have been warned.

So yesterday I was out and about in Berlin with a good friend of mine from the UK who came to visit. We decided to visit Schloss Charlottenburg, pictured below, in the central Berlin district of Charlottenburg.


Schloss Charlottenburg as viewed from the gardens. [Source SPSG]

Here is a tiny potted history of the palace:

Elector Frederick III had a summer residence built for his wife Sophie Charlotte by the architect Johann Arnold Nering between 1695 and 1699. After Frederick became the first Prussian King in 1701, the Palace was extended into a stately building with a cours d'honneur. This work was supervised by the Swedish master builder Johann Friedrich Eosander. The eastern New Wing was built by Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff between 1740 and 1747 as Frederick the Great's residence.

As you can tell from the photo, the palace is quite something. One of the things I love about living in Berlin (and it applies equally to many cities in Europe) is that you can be wandering around in pretty much the middle of the city, through a residential or commercial area, and then turn a corner and bang, you're confronted with a stunning piece of history and architecture from the late 17th century. This just doesn't happen in New Zealand, because it was not settled by Europeans until the 19th century, and because Maori architecture was much les permanent and much less grandiose before that time, meaning that none remains. Of course, you do find Maori artefacts from pre-European times, especially truly beautiful wood carvings, but none of them take up several blocks in the middle of the city.

Anyway, said friend and I decided not to tour the museum exhibitions inside the palace, which I had seen before. Instead we took advantage of the nice spring weather and went for a wander around the gardens. Schloss Charlottenburg boasts both a French-style garden, and an English garden, and they are quite stunning, as you can see (apologies for poor image quality):


A view of the gardens of Schloss Charlottenburg from the tower. [Source: SPSG.]

Anyhow, the point is that I enjoyed our meandering around the gardens and my visit to Schloss Charlottenburg and thought I'd share. It reminded me of yet another reason why I enjoy living here in Berlin.

Thing the First: Truth or Dare?

As a kid, I could never really get into 'Truth or Dare' to be honest. For one thing, you could never tell whether, in the case of 'truth' being chosen, the truth was actually being told. For another, certainly in the circles I moved in as a kid, the girls always seemed to choose 'dare', and then refuse to complete the dare. They just didn't seem to share the boys' sense of shame and failure at backing out of a dare, much to our frustration. I thought that was about all that could be said about 'Truth or Dare'. But I had underestimated eponymous, who has posted a hilarious academic-sociological investigation about the ins and outs of 'Truth or Dare'. If you've ever been mystified or annoyed by the tendency of academics to say what they have to say in the most complex and inscrutable language possible, you'll love this little piece of satire.

"I have been conducting some inquiries into the sociological phenomenon of "Truth or Dare," and have stumbled into a perplexing (if tangential) problem in connection with it. I beseech your collegiate input in the noble service of its expedient resolution.

In my efforts to uphold the informative, transparent character of my enterprise, permit me to present the motivation which gave it impetus. I am guided by an observation: The notion of "truth" appears to be logically encapsulated in the notion of "dare" invoked in this game. To wit, it is possible to dare someone to furnish a true statement in response to a question."

Read the whole thing here.

Thing the Second: The pressing question of who you should vote for (with a hat-tip to Uroskin.)

The UK elections are coming up on the 5th May 2005. While I think the result is not in much doubt (i.e. Tony Blair's Labour Party will in all likelihood retain power), it will be interesting to see how much backlash Labour gets for its decision to take the country to war in Iraq in the face of massive popular opposition. It will also be interesting to see how much ground Michael Howard's Conservative Party makes with their (sadly very popular) agitation against immigrants, asylum-seekers and, most recently, "travellers" - known to most of the rest of us as gypsies.

Anyhow, prompted by Uroskin's blog, I took the "Who Should I vote for?" test. Having lived in the UK for five years and followed national politics fairly closely in that time, I knew exactly how it would turn out. There is, or rather would be were I allowed to vote in this election, only one party for me in the current political climate in the UK, and that is Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats. Sure enough, that's exactly how the test panned out.

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Liberal Democrat

Your actual outcome:

	Labour 12
Conservative -60
	Liberal Democrat 68
UK Independence Party -31
	Green 5

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

The LibDems take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For.

This is not one of those completely trivial blog tests. This one is actually based on the issues at stake in this election. I thought the result was pretty accurate, for me at least. If you have even the slightest interest in the UK election - and you should have, given the UK's role in the EU, and the EU's role in the world - go and take the test. It's interesting stuff.

Thing the Third: Cricket tour to Zimbabwe.

A couple of days ago in the post in which I asked you to consider signing a petition against the proposed NZ cricket tour to Zimbabwe, I promised more background information. It's still coming, but I'm afraid you'll have to wait till tomorrow or Sunday for it. Sorry to keep you waiting, but it's going to be a substantial post, and I want to do it properly as I think it's an important issue. So bear with me, as it were (boom boom!)

And now you know, thrice.

From today's Guardian comes a story about auditions for a new television show in the UK. It's a bit like Pop Idol, but with a science twist. The contestants, mostly science teachers and PhD students from the various scientific fields, are competing in "Famelab" for the opportunity to host a new science programme designed to communicate science to the masses and to "inspire and excite public imagination".

"The queue of hopefuls stretches along the pavement, each one of them eager to convince the judges they have the talent and charisma to make it as a celebrity. The winner of this latest reality television-style talent contest will walk away with a cash prize and a shot at the big time. But there the similarities to Pop Idol end.

Forget Darius and his toe-curling rendition of Britney Spears' Hit Me Baby One More Time, and meet Mark, who uses flashing lights and ping pong balls to explain the intricacies of Einstein's photoelectric effect.

Or maybe the winner will be the extravagantly dressed Elias, fresh off the Eurostar from Lille with his party piece, a monologue on the "fundamentally important issue of toilets in aeroplanes".

Both were taking part in the London auditions yesterday of the nationwide competition Famelab, which aims to find people with a gift for the unenviable task of getting science across to the masses."

Read the rest here.

Unlike much of the "reality TV" dross we are served up day after day, I think this project has some potential. In my experience, scientific knowledge among the general public is nothing short of woeful. As I see it, anything which can generate some public interest in science and its applications has got to be a good thing. By the sounds of things, the aim of this contest is to find a presenter for a science television programme who can actually put some oomph into subject matter that has so often been presented in a dry, sterile and, frankly, dead boring way. In short, they seem to be trying to make science a bit "sexier". In terms of encouraging better understanding of the scientific fields and encouraging youngsters to consider a career in the sciences, I reckon that is a worthwhile aim. Good luck to them.

And now you know.

(With a hat-tip to Miss Behaviour, who brought this to my attention.)

You all know (and either love or hate) the MTV show Pimp my Ride, right? For those you who have been living in a box, it's the US MTV show in which "pimp-master" and US rapper Xzibit arranges for some lucky punter with a crappy car to have it "pimped" by the master customisers at West Coast Customs.

Well, MTV Germany, not to be outdone by its big-sister in the States, has gone one better. Or is that one worse? MTV Germany now has a series called, I kid you not, Pimp my Fahrrad. Fahrrad is German for bicycle. Yes, they are now pimping bicycles in Hamburg.

The blurb on the website reads like this (my translation):

"'Pimp my Fahrrad', the rigorous German answer to the MTV hit-show 'Pimp my Ride' has finally been serialised! From now on you'll be hearing this regularly: "Thanks MTV for pimping my bike so damn cool." The show is hosted by actor and Grimme prize-winner Oliver Korittke, famous for his roles in 'Die Musterknaben' and 'Bang Boom Bang'. The tuning experts in the show are not the Californian car-tinkerers from West Coast Customs, but rather the Hamburg cycle-rockers from the Juniors Club, who go by the name of 'ElbCoastPsycles'."

You can check out a sample video and see the kind of pimping that ElbCostPsycles are capable of here.

And now you know.

With a hat-tip to Dave at Daily dose of Dave.

If you've been dying to know who your inner European is, or if you've never given it a second thought, but are interested now: click the link and take the quick test (only 6 questions) and find out.

BerlinBear's inner European is, much to his own surprise:

Your Inner European is Italian!

=http://www.quizdiva.net/bt/eu... Italian Passionate and colorful. You show the world what culture really is.

Or something like that.
And now you know.

Remember how I was complaining, here, that New Zealand never made the news on this side of the world for real news but always just for trivial stories? Well, today my little South Pacific nation hit the big-time, and made the front page of BBC News, with this story.

The New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was involved in a nasty mid-air plane incident, in which the plane she was travelling in got into trouble in heavy turbulence and a door blew open. She suffered minor injuries, but the pilot managed to land safely, and no-one was seriously hurt.

"The twin-engined Piper Aztec's door blew open when it hit turbulence at 8,000 feet (2,440m). Two policemen tried to hold the door as the plane dived then landed at a nearby airstrip.

"What goes through your head is... are you going to live or die," Ms Clark said, two hours after the ordeal. The prime minister's plane was flying from the tourist town of Rotorua in central North Island to the capital, Wellington, when the trouble started.

Ms Clark, who was wearing a seat belt, was jolted when the six-seater plane dived."

I just love the BBC noting that the PM was wearing a seat-belt. See, there's a safety lesson to be learned there! Or something.

Anyway, I'm pleased that noone was seriously hurt, and that she found time to praise the security officers who struggled to hold the door closed. A brave move, I reckon.

And now you know.

[Note: In case you've never heard of Helen Clark, there are profile-bios on her here and here.]

Further to my several posts about Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe, such as this one, I have something more for your attention.

The New Zealand cricket team is due to tour Zimbabwe soon. There has been considerable discussion in New Zealand about whether or not this tour should go ahead. (You already know what I think - it should not.) I will post a more detailed discussion of this tomorrow. For now though, a petition has been started asking that the New Zealand cricket team not tour Zimbabwe. I would urge you strongly to consider signing this petition online. You do not have to be a New Zealander to sign the petition.

The petition is here.

And now you know.

I've just been reviewing the statistics on my site meter. They are encouraging since I've been at this game for less that a month. Thanks to those of you who've stopped by. I hope you like what you are seeing so far. I'm always open to (reasonable) suggestions though, so feel free to leave a comment or email me.

My favourite stat by far is the referrals page, which shows the search terms people used to get here (for those that didn't click a link elsewhere). There have been some real stunners:

To the person who found The Capital Letter by searching for getting laid in Berlin, (you know who you are! - even if I don't) I'm sorry that I had nothing to offer. I hope you "got lucky" further down the search list.

To the person who got here by searching for Anthony Mom having sex, sorry, Anthony's Mom has, tragically, passed away (though he didn't mention that in the interview.)

To the person who came here looking for strategies for teaching capital letters, I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea. I would be interested in hearing what you found though, not least because German uses a lot more capital letters than English (they capitalise the first letter of every noun). How do you teach capital letters?

To the person who wanted to know a capital in Europe that starts with the letter E, there are none, so that must have been a trick question. You can, however, find a list of all of the capital cities of Europe here. See, saved you another search. All part of the service.

The most popular search terms which have led people here seem to be queries about the Zimbabwean elections, the fighting footballers, and, weirdly, flavanol, so I think I shall have to pursue those stories a little further. There's clearly a market for them.

Oddly enough, noone has yet found their way to this site by searching for sesquipedalian circumlocution, fishy, post-colonialism, moist, or archetypal, but they just might now.

This edition of The Capital Letter - by BerlinBear has been brought to you by the letter E, and by the number googol.

Oh, and before I sign off, what is a sex template?!?

And now you know.

Reported on the BBC News website today is this story about Japan's proposals to extend its whaling programme.

"Japan is proposing to expand its controversial whaling research programme.
The plan would see Japan nearly double its catch of minke whales and start catching humpback and fin whales.

The plan will be submitted to the International Whaling Commission in May, though it does not need approval."

Japanese officials are sticking to their line that the whale catch is needed for scientific research. This is a claim they have been making since 1987, after commercial whaling was first banned in 1986.

An official from Japan's Fisheries Agency told the news agency there was "a need to consider surveying such whales... given that there has been an increase in the number of sightings".

But the official added that further details of the proposal could not be disclosed before the IWC meeting.

That reads to me like code for this: "As a result of the ban on commercial whaling, whale numbers have increased. We feel that there is money to be made from doing something about that and would like to see whale sightings reduced to their pre-ban numbers. So we intend to catch and kill more whales, sell the products as a delicacy, and pass the whole thing off as scientific research. Surely noone can have anything against scientific research can they?"

The article itself paraphrases the critical voices thus:

Critics say that Japan is using the excuse of scientific research into whales as a pretext to continue selling, and eating, whale meat.

The meat from the animals killed during the research programme is sold commercially. Whale meat is seen as a delicacy in Japan, and officials in Tokyo maintain that the tradition is an important part of the nation's cultural heritage.

Each year Japan kills about 400 minke whales, as well as a smaller number of Bryde's whales, sei whales and sperm whales.

I don't buy the tradition and cultural heritage argument. I'm with the critics on this one.

And now you know.

[Note: This article is cross-posted at Pourquoi Pas?]

Here, for your viewing pleasure, in no particular order, are ten things I love about living in Berlin:

1. The truly fantastic public transport system: the Berliners don't know how good they've got it;
   
2. The sense of history: it is more pervasive and more varied here than any other city I have ever lived in, even Oxford;
   
3. The way in which East meets West here. I don't just mean in the sense of East Berliners and West Berliners, or even East Germans and West Germans. I mean Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans. It's something I had never been exposed to before, and I like the variety it offers;
   
4. The fact that Berlin is a large enough city to have English language cinemas, so that I can avoid watching American and British movies dubbed into German;
   
5. The Döner Kebabs: second to none - and believe me, I have sampled kebabs in lots of places around the world;
   
6. The variety of theatre productions and music events: the only place I know which has a similar offering is London, where the prices of the events are so prohibitive that you can't afford to enjoy them frequently, as you can here;
   
7. The fact that there are four top-quality, highbrow, Berlin-based newspapers to choose from every day of the week;
   
8. The choice of two magazines solely devoted to letting you know what's going on in the city: that's how you can really tell there's plenty happening here;
   
9. The fact that I have several forests (3) and numerous lakes within a ten minute walk of my house;
   
10. The cultural diversity: I have never heard as many different languages in one city as I have here. So many I can't even identify them all.
    

Needless to say, there are also things that, from time to time, bug me about living here. But that's the case wherever you are. Besides, today was a lovely sunny day and I saw the first daffodils and wild flowers of spring, so I'm feeling all positive. So the negatives will have to wait for a grey, miserable day, when I need to get something off my chest.

And now you know.

Tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp Buchenwald by American soldiers on 11th April 1945. BBC News today has a story covering the commemorations there, which included a speech by German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

I have visited Buchenwald, which is near Weimar in Eastern Germany, and wandered around the grounds and lingered in the museum. The museum that has been set up there is excellent, but horrifying, and the grounds are ghostly and haunting. Buchenwald is a terrible place and I felt very uncomfortable there. I was glad when it was time to leave. Of course, at least I could leave, which was not the case for approximately 56,000 people who died there, including Jews, Soviet prisoners of war, Jehovah's Witnesses, political prisoners, homosexuals etc. You can find more information on Buchenwald at the Buchenwald memorial site, and view pictures of the horrors of Buchenwald on this BBC site.

As the Second World War and the era of Nazi Germany recede further into the past, and as the last of the survivors and eye witnesses grow old and die, it becomes ever more important that we remind ourselves frequently of the horrors of the Holocaust, so that we may learn from them and ensure that such barbarism will never be repeated. If we disregard this hideous and uncomfortable chapter of world history, or allow time to numb our sense of the injustices done, we run the risk of history repeating itself.

Perhaps someone should tell that to John Tamihere.

And now you know.

Right, enough of all the bad news, moaning and groaning, and shrill outraged shrieking from my soapbox. It's the weekend, and the sun is shining, so today's installment will consist entirely of good news.

First up, spam, the scourge of just about everyone's life online. Well, according to this story on BBC News, the world's eighth most prolific spammer has been sentenced to nine years in prison:

"By selling sham products and services advertised in his messages, [Jeremy Jaynes, 30] earned up to $750,000 (£398,000) per month. ... Jaynes was operating through an America Online (AOL) server in Loudoun County, where the world's largest Internet services provider is based, and is believed to have sent some 10m unwanted emails a day."

Nice one! I hope his appeal is unsuccessful, and that this will be the first of many such convictions.

Next, also from BBC News, it seems that Prince Charles has invited two of the famous lunch-box, or tiffin, carriers from the Indian city of Mumbai to his wedding today, all expenses paid. Having met Charles two years ago during his last visit to India, they "had sent wedding gifts that included a traditional Indian headdress for Prince Charles and a sari, blouse and bangles for Camilla." And Charles has responded by inviting them to attend the wedding in person. Nice touch.

This story on allAfrica.com, which is at least largely good news, details the agreement by all involved parties yesterday in South Africa - brokered by South African president Thabo Mbeki - to end hostilities in the Ivory Coast:

"The government and rebels of Cote d'Ivoire declared an immediate and definitive end to hostilities on Wednesday after three days of talks in South Africa, but the key issue of whether opposition leader Alassane Ouattara would be allowed to contest presidential elections due later this year remained unresolved.
...
"The Ivorian parties that are signatories to the Pretoria agreement hereby solemnly declare the immediate and final cessation of all hostilities and the end of the war throughout the national territory," Gbagbo, Soro, Prime Minister Seydou Diarra and the leaders of Cote d'Ivoire's two main opposition parties said in a joint statement."

That, for sure, is a very pleasing development, even if the divisive question of eligibility for the presdiential election still needs to be resolved.

Next up, with a hat-tip to eponymous, from the never miss a marketing opportunity file, is this story from Bogota in Colombia:

"BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Pope John Paul II is being reborn in a Colombian comic book as a superhero battling evil with an anti-Devil cape and special chastity pants.

The first episode of the "Incredible Popeman" is about to go on sale in Colombia and shows the late Polish pontiff meeting comic book legends such as Batman and Superman to learn how to use superpowers to battle Satan.

"The pope was a real-life superhero, of flesh and blood," said Colombian artist Rodolfo Leon, a non-practicing Catholic who has been working on the comic book for about a year."

Umm, yeah. He had me at "special chastity pants".

And the last piece of good news for today comes from the Berliner Zeitung. This week here in Berlin, a baby elephant was born in the Berliner Tierpark. No name has been decided on yet. Two more elephant calves are expected in May.

This concludes our good news Saturday round-up.

And now you know.

By now, anyone reading this blog regularly will have picked up that I have a problem with Robert Mugabe and the way he is running Zimbabwe. I have already blogged on the recent Zimbabwean elections here and here.

A few select quotes from the recent Freedom House report on the world's worst regimes should give an idea of why I object to this man and his regime:

"Zimbabwe descended further into crisis in 2004 as the authoritarian government of President Robert Mugabe continued to stifle dissent, and militia loyal to Mugabe attacked opposition supporters with impunity. Economic collapse, and with it serious food shortages, deepened as the government expanded its ruinous policy of expropriating white-owned commercial farmland, and as other economic mismanagement and corruption widened. The government further curtailed the freedom of journalists, opposition parties, and civil society organizations."

And further:

"In 2002, Mugabe claimed victory in a deeply flawed presidential election that failed to meet minimum international standards for legitimacy. The election pitted Mugabe against the MDC's Morgan Tsvangirai, a popular trade union leader who was arrested and charged with treason in 2003 after organizing national strikes."

And that is just a tiny sample of a catalogue of disaster outlined in over six pages in the Freedom House report.

Today Zimbabwe is in the news again. Twice. Both articles that caught my attention are on allAfrica.com. The first, which is here, seems like good news, on the face of it. Apparently, despite his gloating just after the recent election that he would not retire until he was "a century old", Robert Mugabe has now said that he will not seek re-election in 2008:

"President Robert Mugabe will not seek re-election in the 2008 presidential election, Zanu PF secretary for Information and Publicity, Nathan Shamuyarira, revealed in an interview yesterday.

Shamuyarira told the Zimbabwe Independent the ruling party will have to choose his successor before the presidential election in three years' time. Shamuyarira said the party will intensify its efforts to choose a successor to Mugabe in the next three years to 2008. ...

"The president has said that he will not seek re-election after 2008 so we have to find a successor. We will do it publicly like we did with the other members of the presidium," he said. Shamuyarira would not be drawn into disclosing the names and the number of aspirants eyeing the post."

That, if true, is certainly good news. But of course, those who follow Zimbabwean issues know that anything that a government spokesperson says needs to be viewed with a great deal of scepticism. Personally, I would hope that it will not be an issue whether or not Mugabe wishes to stand again, because by then I would like to see him ousted as President and put on trial for his crimes. Whether or not that happens, we shall have to wait and see.

The second article, which is here, makes for rather less happy reading, because it catalogues examples of what the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has called "a nationwide campaign of retribution after last week's disputed general election", unleashed by Mugabe and his ZANU-PF henchmen.

According to the article:

"The MDC said scores of its supporters had been injured in post-election violence meted out by Zanu PF elements. It said some rural homes had been burnt down during the attacks. The attacks were reported mainly in Mashonaland West, Matabeleland South and Manicaland, the MDC said."

One section of the article is particularly telling and perturbing: after an incident in Matabeleland South, which involved serious injuries to at least seven MDC supporters, the firing of guns and the smashing of doors and windows in several buildings, a police officer "tried to control the situation and arrested several Zanu PF youths and took them to Filabusi police station." These youths were later released by the Inspector in charge of the police station, who instead of detaining the attackers, ordered the arrest of the victims.

I've said it before, but what is wrong with this picture?

The western world must not stand by and allow Mugabe to continue to destroy his country and its people in this way. It is, for example, not acceptable that Mugabe was allowed to travel to the Pope's funeral today, despite an EU travel ban, or that Prince Charles should be in a position where he cannot avoid shaking Mugabe's hand at the service. Come on Western politicians! This is the year in which you are supposed to be doing something about Africa. One aspect of that ought to be doing something constructive to put some real pressure on Mugabe to shape up or ship out, and to give his country a chance to recover from the economic and humanitarian disaster he has bestowed on it.

And now you know.

[Note: a version of this post is cross-posted at Pourquoi Pas?]

What is it with Germans and their dogs?!? A couple of days ago, I blogged about a ridiculous plan afoot in Dresden to DNA test dog-poo. And now dogs are in the news here again.

According to this article, a Hamburg-based carwash owner yesterday opened Germany's first dog-wash facility right next door. He hopes that people who come for a car wash will bring their furry friends with them and kill two birds with one stone.


Workin' at the dog wash. [Source: Deutsche Welle]

Apparently, it costs €4.90 to soap up, shower down, and dry off your dog. It is a do-it-yourself service. Lars Schütze, the owner, reckons:

"That's not expensive, considering that you usually have to wash your dog at home and spend half an hour cleaning the bathroom afterwards."

I reckon, bollocks. By the time you've packed your dog into the car, driven there, washed him/her, packed your dog back into the car, driven back, vacuumed your freshly washed car to get the dog hair out, and so forth, you could have cleaned the bathroom twice and saved yourself €4.90 plus petrol money.

I'll be interested to see how it goes. In the meantime, for those of you beginning to wonder: Yes, there are normal dog-owners in Germany! They just don't make the news.

And now you know.

For lindy, juniperflux and altricial, who will appreciate it, and all the teenies WhO rItE thEY'rE bLogS LiKe tHiS, who won't get it:

I found this stroke of genius on Zen Tiger's blog, and thought I'd share:

How to rite proper

Many people seem to dash off a quick post, and fail to check for misteaks. Its' really annoying to some ppl, so's I thought I'd point out common errors in an effort to raise the standards:

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's
highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

And that is only the beginning. Zen Tiger has another 20 of these which will have you either a) rolling on the floor laughing, or b) wondering what he's on about. If you're the one wondering what he's on about, you're also one of the ones he's talking to. Check out the full post here.

And now you know.

In this article in the Guardian Tristram Hunt, visiting professor of history at Arizona State University, examines what he calls the Bush administration's "campaign for faith over fact."

Hunt argues, I fear rightly, that in the US the policies and prejudices of the Bush administration have led to science becoming "a dirty word." He laments the shift from a situation in which, in the past, the White House was vital to promoting scientific research and luring the best scientific minds in the world to the US, to the current situation in which "this presidency exhibits an abiding aversion to scientific enquiry that is in danger of affecting the entire country."

Amongst other evidence, he cites the following:

• Official publications on the science of climate change have been replaced with drafts from utility lobbyists


• An Environmental Protection Agency report which linked industry emissions to global warming was withdrawn at the request of White House advisers


• Scientific advisory panels have been vetted for presidential supporters


• Uncomfortable data on stem cell research has been discounted


• On the subject of energy exploitation in Alaska, submissions from coal, gas and oil corporations are given greater credence than evidence from government scientists


• The teaching of evolution has been replaced in some school districts by the teaching of creationism, and even where evolution remains on the syllabus, some teachers are afraid to teach "the E word" for fear of backlash from evangelical Christians (according to a New York Times survey)

Hunt goes on to discuss the fall in numbers of foreign students and scientists entering the US, and notes that the state department has begun to revise its visa requirements to stem this problem. He is not confident that this measure will work, however:

Even if the department of homeland security starts to let foreign scientists back in, many have to be asking: given such official disdain, is there any point in doing the science?

I must say that I share Hunt's concern. Though I am not a scientist myself, I believe it is clear that scientific inquiry is the way forward. Ongoing, properly funded, scientific research in all fields is how we humans find the answers to previously unanswered questions and solutions to previously insoluble problems. It lies at the root of or progress. The US, and indeed the world, cannot afford for its scientists to be hamstrung by a political agenda, or ignored if what they discover or find evidence for does not sit well with the policy of the day. It is not acceptable to cherry-pick the scientific findings and evidence which supports your agenda and disregard and marginalise the uncomfortable rest.

Bush is dependent for his mandate to govern on two significant lobbies who have a vested interest in marginalising "unhelpful" scientific research: big business - particularly the petro-chemicals industry - on the one hand, which does not want pesky findings about damage to the environment and climate change to force controls on their activities which will reduce profits, and evangelical Christians on the other, who do not want pesky evidence regarding evolution, geology and physics to call their faith-based world view into question. Of course, Bush himself is a member of both of these interest groups. As a result, he seems doubly convinced that marginalising those scientists who refuse to say what he wants them to say, despite the evidence, is not only acceptable, but a good thing.

On this, President Bush is, in my opinion, wrong. As a result, he risks jeopardising the leading role of the United States in the world scientific community, as students and leading scientific researchers from around the world get the message that science is a dirty word, and take their intelligence and enquiring minds elsewhere.

And now you know.

[Note: this article is cross-posted at Pourquoi Pas?]

I read in the Guardian Weekly today that a 12th century book that was looted by the Nazis during the Second World War and somehow found its way into the collection of the British Library is to be returned to its rightful owner, the Cathedral of Benevento in Italy. (The article is here.) The book was described in the paper as a missal. I was familiar with the term missive, and indeed in some of my more bombastic moments have been known to refer to emails to and from certain friends of mine as missives. But missal was entirely new to me. So, like the good linguistic geek that I am, I looked it up. And here, for your viewing pleasure is the difference according to the New Oxford Dictionary of English:

"missal noun a book containing the texts used in the Catholic Mass throughout the year - ORIGIN Middle English; from medieval Latin missale, neuter of ecclesiastical Latin missali 'relating to the Mass', from missa 'Mass'."

Whereas, on the other hand, a missive is something else entirely:

"missive noun often humorous a letter, especially a long or official one: yet another missive from the Foreign Office ... ORIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective, originally in the phrase LETTER MISSIVE): from medieval Latin missivus, from Latin mittere 'send'. The current sense dates from the early 16th cent."

Not the same thing at all, you see.


In the same paper, on the same page, I read that Lord Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister of Britain, died at home one the eve of his 93rd birthday, just 11 days after the death of his wife, Audrey, to whom he had been married for more than six decades. His obituary is here.

Isn't it interesting how often you hear or read about couples who have been together for an extremely long time and then pass away within a few days or weeks of each other? It's almost as if, when you've been a team for that long, once the other is gone life loses its purpose and you just give up. I wonder if studies have been done about this phenomenon? I fully expect that in the not too distant future, my two surviving grandparents are going to be in exactly the same position. They too have been married for more than 60 years, and are now both very ill and infirm. Right now I have the distinct impression that they are both holding on because they think the other one needs them - to be admired in and of itself, surely. But I am equally sure that when the first one passes away, the other will follow quick smart. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Sad, but then, as my Dad likes to say: "They've had a pretty good innings."

By the way, did you know that in a Commonwealth country, such as New Zealand, you get a personal telegram from the Queen on your sixtieth wedding anniversary? That or your hundredth birthday, or indeed, presumably, both if you have that much stamina. I don't know where that tradition comes from, but I think it's a nice one, particularly for oldies like my grandparents who grew up in a time when Britain was still thought and spoken of as Home, or the Mother country, even by those who had never been near the place. Certainly, my grandparents were pretty chuffed with their telegram.

And now you know.

From the News that really makes you wonder desk:

This story on Deutsche Welle [fret not: it's in English], and this one from The Sydney Morning Herald outline a proposal by Dresden district politicians to use doggy-DNA to track down and fine dog owners who fail to clean up after their dogs. No, really.

The plan, not yet implemented and still awaiting confirmation at city level, goes like this: Using modern DNA sampling techniques, the city officials take a saliva sample from every registered dog in the city. That sample is then mapped to the owner of the dog. That way, when a pile of poo (or in German: Hundehaufen) is found, it can be DNA tested, and the owner can be tracked down and heavily fined for failing to poop-and-scoop.

This is possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard. What a spectacular waste of money and time! For a fraction of the cost of the saliva sampling, DNA testing, tracking down of owners and chasing up unpaid fines, Dresden could employ a team of, otherwise unemployed, "dog-doo destroyers" to go around picking up the mess. That way, the dog-poo problem would be solved, Dresden would get some more of its many unemployed back to work, and the money saved could be invested in something worthwhile like, um well, anything other than DNA-testing dogs. Sure, it's not a job I'd like to do, but then, frankly, nor would I like to be the guy taking the DNA samples from the poo in the first place!

Now, I hate having to step around dog-poo as much as the next guy. But they've got it all out of proportion. Dog-poo is, after all, at least natural and biodegradable. I reckon the Dresden authorities would be much better off investing their time and effort in finding ways to discourage the numbskulls who dump things like used fridges, household rubbish and other non-biodegradable products in the forest or in lay-bys, rather than this ridiculous stunt.

And now you know.

I am not a Catholic, so I don't feel qualified to assess the Pope's contribution in the wake of his passing. That's why I've kept quiet about it here until now. My admiration for the Pope's achievements in the anti-war and human rights fields is tempered by grave misgivings regarding his, and the Catholic Church's, stances on contraception (especially in Africa), women in the church, enforced celibacy of priests etc.

But Timothy Garton-Ash, an academic and columnist whose work I greatly admire, has published this excellent assessment in the Guardian, in which he asserts that Pope John Paul II was "the first world leader" and "the greatest political actor of the last quarter-century". In a very balanced piece, Garton-Ash goes on to back up his claims very strongly. It's a good read I would heartily recommend.

This quote in particular took the wind out of my objecting sails:

The familiar claim that he was "socially conservative" is a gross oversimplification. He consistently admonished third world dictators and western capitalists about the need for social justice. In a small Polish-speaking group I once heard him say, very plainly, that he deplored unbridled capitalism as much as communism. He was also utterly consistent in his advocacy of peace, from criticising the impending Falklands war when he came to Britain in 1982 to opposing the Iraq war in 2003. In Japan, he cried: "Never again Hiroshima! Never again Auschwitz!"

I also wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment:

Whether or not we share John Paul II's motivating beliefs, we can acknowledge that his was the most impressive attempt so far made by any single human being to spell out what moral globalisation might mean, starting with a lived practice of universal sympathy.

I am still not wholly convinced, and my objections to aspects of Catholic doctrine remain as strong as they ever were. But as they say, credit where credit is due.

And now you know.

This article on BBC News looks at former professional footballer George Weah's attempt to become president of Liberia, and cites examples of other sportsmen and sportswomen who have gone into politics.

In his time as a footballer, George Weah was a superstar, not just in his native Liberia but all over Africa, Europe and the world. In 1995 he won the World's best player award, and in 1998 he was voted African player of the century. But now that his football career is over, Weah has decided to try his hand at politics. And he wants to go straight to the top.

Geroge Weah plays football with youngsters, above, and receives a hero's welcome, below, in Liberia. [Source: Unicef]

The elections in Liberia will be held on 11th October 2005. Despite his limited education, it seems that George Weah will have a good chance of being elected president. He still holds cult-like hero status in Liberia, due to his successes on the pitch. He is popular with the young, which is important as they make up a disproptionately large part of the election (Liberia's median age is just 18.1 years). Furthermore, Weah is already known in Liberia for his efforts off the pitch. As the BBC article puts it:

"Yet Weah's impact on his country was not just sporting. Mister George, as he is known in France, is also a hero to many Liberians for his off the field work, being named a Unicef ambassador for his efforts to improve the lives of children throughout the continent. "It is almost impossible to explain how much George has done for Liberia," the country's sports minister, Wheatonia Dixon-Barnes, told BBC World Service's Focus On Africa magazine. ...

Above all, Weah is perceived as an honest and good man. Liberia has seen few such wholesome characters among its political leaders in the last two decades. For that alone, the footballer turned politician has a good chance of winning the most important job in his homeland."

It is difficult to say from this distance and before Weah's campaign gets into full swing what exactly his politics are like and whether or not he would make a good president. One thing is certain though: having George Weah as president would definitely raise the profile of Liberia in Europe, which presumably could only be a good thing.

Doubtless there have been a great many people who were "perceived as an honest and good man" when they entered politics, but who have then gone on to become corrupted by their power and influence, and have failed to deliver what the electorate had hoped for. Let us hope that, if elected, George Weah will not turn out to be one of those. Because Liberia, after 14 years of civil war, and with 80% of its population living below the poverty line, could certainly use a strong and trustworthy leader.

And now you know.

[Note: Don't know anything about Liberia? Shame on you: it's Africa's oldest republic and it was founded by freed American slaves. Check out the BBC's country profile, or the CIA factbook entry for Liberia]

Over on BBC News today, there is an article on blogging and its current, and future, place in the world. In an interesting analysis, David Reid covers arguments both for against blogging as a force for political and media change. It's worth a read.

Key quote from the article, from James Connell, who is the deputy technology editor of the International Herald Tribune:

"I would encourage my traditional media colleagues to look upon blogs as a positive thing and not a negative thing. ... Anything that makes debate more inclusive and more lively, and anything that makes it easier for the average person to say: 'hey that's not right' to the entire world, is a positive thing."

Couldn't agree more. I just wish there weren't quite so much utter dross out there in the blogosphere to wade through before you get to the good analysis and opinion.

And now you know.

I have already blogged on the Zimbabwean general election, here, but now the official results are in, and there are no surprises.

Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has, as Mugabe predicted before the election, won two thirds of the seats. In a remarkable piece of "luck" for Mugabe, this extends his majority above the threshold required to make constitutional amendments. Now, who would have thunk it? Isn't it remarkable that in the US, where countless millions are spent on pre-election polling, exit polling and so forth, the discrepancy between exit polls and final results could be a full 5.5%, whereas Mugabe, without funding for or access to such polling techniques, can pull an unlikely figure like two-thirds majority out of the air, and be bang on? You be the judge.

You may recall that in my last post on this topic I was sceptical about Mugabe's claim that he would retire before the next elections in 2008. Well, as reported in the Observer, in his first public statement after the election "results" came in, he cast any hope of that out the window. Mugabe said:

"This is a moment of victory for my party and the victory of my party translates itself into a victory for our country," [Yeah, right! (ed)] said Mugabe, 81. Asked about his retirement plans, he added: "When I am a century old." [I fervently hope you don't make it to anywhere near that age (ed)].

The elections have been condemned as flawed by governments and elections observers all around the world, as well as the opposition MDC. The only exceptions so far are the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which has postponed its report on the validity of the results while it investigates "major queries over a quarter of the polling stations", and the South African
government's observer mission, which has said that the poll "reflected the will of the people".

This latter statement is particularly disappointing. As the largest, most powerful, and most settled democracy in the region, and as a nation which has hauled itself out from under oppressive rule, South Africa should be leading the way in applying pressure to Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe's leaders. Instead it appears that they are currying favour and are unwilling to upset the apple cart. Either that, or all the other election obersvers from around the world have got it wrong. Likely? I think not.

There is talk in various quarters about resistance and protest. Unfortunately, it seems that the appetite for open confrontation with the authorities (read: Mugabe's henchmen) is slight. It is not difficult to see why.

The Washington Post puts it like this:

"Any public gatherings not approved explicitly in advance by the police are essentially illegal under Zimbabwe's laws. In his comments Saturday, Mugabe made clear that anyone protesting against the election results would meet resistance.
"We can also raise mass action against their mass action, and there would obviously be conflict, serious conflict," Mugabe said at a news conference, flanked by two life-sized stuffed lions."

That, it seems to me, is Mugabe-speak for "If you dare to embarrass me by protesting against this result, I will have no hesitation in arranging for my police force to beat you to within an inch of your life, before imprisoning you and all your supporters on some trumped-up, fabricated charge, just as I did to a group of women protesting peacefully on election day. You have been warned."

The Washington Post article continues:

"Tsvangirai [the leader of the opposition MDC] has few options to fight back. Even calling for protests could be regarded as illegal under the country's Public Order and Security Act. And a lawsuit alleging electoral misdeeds could be indefinitely delayed, as was one suit challenging the fairness of the 2002 presidential vote."

In such a situation, I, like Tsvangirai and his party, would think long and hard about what, if any, action I could risk taking. Perhaps, against all odds and at serious risk to their own safety, enough brave souls in Zimbabwe will rise up against this brutal thug. If they do, they deserve the unequivocal support of the West and of the UN.

We can only hope.

And now you know.

Yesterday, Graham Capill, the former leader of the Christian Heritage Party, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a young girl. He has been remanded on bail to await sentencing next month. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 in prison. I hope he gets all of them.

Capill is married with ten children. The girl he assaulted was eight at the time. The charge he has been convicted on was a so-called "representative" charge, meaning that one charge stands representative for multiple offences. Reports indicate that he molested the young girl some 3 or 4 times during 2001-2002. This was while he was still leader of the Christian Heritage party.

This is a man who for more than ten years led a Christain political party which campaigns on issues such as opposing abortion, opposing euthanasia, opposing civil unions, opposing the right of homosexual couples to adopt children, strengthening "family values" etc etc. And now it emerges that he is a child molester.

I don't have the words to express the fury I feel at this hypocrisy. So I shall let Mr Capill's self-righteous, hate-filled invective speak for itself in revealing its own hypocrisy.[Source: Scoop]:

"A sad reflection on the warped moral values that children are now confronted with". Criticises award-winning book Dare, Truth Or Promise, by Dunedin writer Paula Boock, which explored lesbian love. - 1998.

"The association of the innocence of an infant with the filthy lifestyle of homosexuals is offensive in the extreme." Protesting pro-homosexual billboards promoting the Hero Parade - 1998.

"Other parties may pay lip service to family values - we have a manifesto built on them." Launches the Christian Heritage manifesto. - 1998.

"The appallingly high rate of child abuse in this country does not need any reinforcement from American film makers." On the film Lolita. - 1999.

"Unfortunately this is a case of art imitating life, as studies show that stepfathers are four times more likely to abuse their daughters than biological fathers." On Lolita again. - 1999

"The perversity of their own lifestyles is unlikely to be restricted to the couples concerned and puts the children at increased risk of abuse." Rails against same-sex couples. - 2000.

"It is inexcusable to screen paedophilic homosexual acts on national free-to-air television. Depictions of such illegal acts may well result in greater child and young person abuse." Condemns as immoral British soap opera Queer As Folk. - 2000.

Needless to say, the Christian Heritage Party has made a statement condemning Capill, distancing itself from his actions, and pointing out that he is no longer the leader of the party. Of course, they fail to mention the fact that all of his offences occurred while he was leader of the party.

I can't stand hypocrisy. I especially can't stand it from the self-righteous. And I especially can't stand it from moralistic, high-and-mighty, so-called Christians like Capill who preach hatred and intolerance, and presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, but fail to practise what they preach. Those in glasshouses, shouldn't throw stones.

I hope beyond hope that this will mean the political demise of the Christian Heritage Party in New Zealand.

You can get the full story here [Stuff], here [NZ Herald], and here [One News].

And now you know.

We've all seen incidents at sports matches where players from opposing teams exchange harsh words and even come to blows, but I'd be willing to bet you've never seen anything like this.



Lee Bowyer, left, and Kieron Dyer, right, come to blows, while Aston Villa players attempt to break them up. Source BBC Sport

During Newcastle United's 3-0 home defeat at the hands of Aston Villa today, two Newcastle players were involved in a punch-up. Lee Bowyer and Kieron Dyer traded blows after Aston Villa scored their third goal. The fight had to be broken up by Aston Villa players.

OK, so just to clarify, two players from the same team start trading punches while the game is still going on. Their fight has to be broken up by players from the other team. These players each get paid over £50,000 per week (yes, you read that right) to represent their club. What is wrong with this picture?

Both players were sent off by the referee, and both will face suspensions (the length of which will be determined by the Football Association). In addition, they will face internal discipline (probably a hefty fine), and they were forced to make public apologies at the press conference after the game. In my opinion, they should be given the harshest possible punishment. I don't know what the maximum suspension the FA can hand down for violent conduct is, but I'd have thought that this was the time to crack it out. And frankly, if I were the manager or chairman of Newcastle United, I'd be giving some serious thought to whether I want either of these players on my roster.

When you're being paid as much as these guys are to play sport, when your every move is televised, when fans pay a fortune each week to come and watch you play, and when - like it or not - you're a role model to young kids, then you can damn well behave yourself. Lee Bowyer and Kieron Dyer are pathetic and should a) be ashamed of themselves, and b) be made to pay the price for their actions.

And now you know.

From the "News that should surprise no-one" file, this article over on Stuff informs us that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has claimed that his country's parliamentary elections are as fair as any in the world, while the United States and other international observers have said they had been conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation.

This quote says it all:

"Releasing partial voting details after polls closed on Thursday, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission officials said more than 94,000 people had been turned away from polling stations in seven of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces. They gave no reasons.

The Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), grouping 35 non-governmental organisations, put the figure much higher, saying an average of 25 per cent of would-be voters had been turned away from polling stations."

Right, so 25% of those who wanted to vote were not allowed to do so. I wonder if that had anything to do with the way the ruling Zanu-PF party feared they might vote? Surely not?

The article goes on:

"Mugabe, who dismisses the MDC [the opposition Movement for Democratic Change] as a stooge of Western powers opposed to his seizures of white-owned farms for landless black Zimbabweans, predicted the election would deliver a clear mandate for his ruling ZANU-PF."

Well, yes, you can predict that safely can't you, when you control who is counting the votes, who is allowed to vote, who is allowed to campaign and where; when in some districts you arrange for over 90% of the voters to be "assisted to vote"; when you have effectively banished Western media coverage from within the country, and when you have personally arranged for the adding of around a million "ghost-voters" to the electoral roll?

What has happened in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe's iron rule is a disgrace. Mugabe claims, of course, that he will not seek re-election in 2008 (the next scheduled parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe), but 1) you'd have to be pretty naive to buy that, and 2) that's three years from now and he has already shown that he can wreak plenty of havoc and cause plenty of damage in a shorter period than that.

I can only hope that, somehow, sometime soon, he will be ousted from power and that Zimbabweans can begin the long, long road of economic and political recovery. And I hope that, unlike some other countries in Africa, such as Togo recently, it is not a matter of having to wait until this despotic leader dies before progress can be made.

You can find more reports on the elections and the situation in Zimbabwe here [Scoop], here [BBC], here [Washington Post], and here [The Guardian].

In addition, this Observer piece provides an excellent and heart-wrenching analysis of the pre-election situation in Zimbabwe.

And now you know.

This story over on Scoop details how Cabbage Patch Kids have been found growing in an otherwise normal cabbage field in Pukekohe, just south of Auckland.

Apparently, the farmer, Howe Young, found the Cabbage Patch Kids growing in his field, and "is baffled as to how an otherwise ordinary field of cabbages could suddenly start sprouting Cabbage Patch Kids."

Well, yes, and well he might. And if you doubt this story is true, here is the incontrovertible evidence:

Howe Young and his Cabbage Patch

Now what was today's date again?

And now you know.